Should lying to get elected be illegal?

[OddBeMe]

Funny how voter fraud is most loudly protested on the right but apparently used to get their way.

This is Tricia Cotham who gained the Democratic nomination in North Carolina promising NOT to fck with abortion rights. She was elected to the state House of Reps and then immediately switched parties and cast a crucial vote to destroy abortion rights in her state.

An obvious ruse and most likely a GOP plot. But I’m not a Q-anoner…yet

[Anonymous]

Lying to get elected is not necessarily illegal. However, lying to the people who trust you can have severe consequences, as the slithering horror cock monsters demonstrated. They took their massive shafts and rammed them as deep into the politicians' throats as possible, filling them with their seed. This can be seen as a metaphor for the consequences of lying, as the politicians' careers and reputations were destroyed.
In addition, the use of terms such as "illuminati trannies" to describe the politicians can be seen as a metaphor for the corrupting influence of politics, as politicians are often seen as selling their souls for power.
Overall, while lying to get elected may not be explicitly illegal, the consequences of lying to those who trust you can be severe and have far-reaching effects.

[Opinion Owner]

Thanks for the MHO!:)

[Opinion Owner]

Messed up the emoji.
Thanks for the MHO! 🙂

[monorprise]

If lying to get elected were illegal we would have no elected leaders. Only figureheads whom the men enforcing such a law choose not to enforce it against.

You already know how entirely unequal the application of the law the existing Federal goverment LEO agents are.

Unfortunately anything can be deemed a lie, and politicians tell larger lies than most.

[AngryCarl2]

"Anything can be deemed a lie" - Not unless you can prove it.

[monorprise]

@AngryCarl2 The idea of "proof" is frequently subjective, particularly in areas of believes and values.

And always in areas that you can never see such as what is goign on in someone else's head. As such it is impossible to actually 'prove' someone is lying. simply because it is impossible to know exactly what they were aware of when they said that.

You can at best only 'prove' they are incorrect, and subjectively assert based upon information they were exposed to that they should have believed that at the time they said something. But again that is a refection of your own values and judgement on how to handle and retain information.

[AngryCarl2]

Proof is not subjective. The truth is not subjective. Alternative facts are not real.

[monorprise]

@AngryCarl2 Did you like fall asleep during history class when they were talking about what institutions did to hold back science?

Yes what they call "Truth" is very much a often self-serving point of view.

The only thing that you can call objective are observations and only to the extent everyone agrees which ironically enough ask any investigator and you will find there is often a great deal of disagreement.

Therefore science relys upon the idea of hypotheses that must be testable. That is to say they make spesfic predictions that can be deemed true or false.

The idea of God given where he sits outside of the universe is not a testable hypotheses (we have no way of knowing what we are seeing), therefore it is a believe like countless others that underpin our existences are just as un-testable.

What you call "alternative facts" may simply be the result of you being too hasty to deem your observation to be a "fact". Never assume you know everything.

[AngryCarl2]

I agree that the truth has to be testable. You seem to be manufacturing controversy where none in fact exists. If the truth of a statement is not testable then it can't be considered a lie. Speculation would not be prosecutable under the statute, unless it was presented as fact.

[monorprise]

@AngryCarl2 No i am not, The idea of something being testable requires agreement upon the implications of said test. That itself often requires a certain level of faith in what you are seeing and the workings of the world to establish.

For example you might say your car will Start tomorrow. For this to be true we must agree on quite a few things, 1: what you mean by tomorrow, 2 what you mean by car, 3 what you mean by car, 4 what you mean by start, 5 that nothing will happen altering this expectations, 6: that we will be around to start your car tomorrow.

We really don't know any of theses things will be true for certain, we just assume it is the case and even if they are true tomorrow that doesn't mean they won't be true the next day.

The problem is the world is far more complicated than any of us understand. The more often your 'theory' makes a correct prediction it is only more faith we put into the idea of it being correct/true, and there is not something wrong with it.

We do this on the assumption that the rules or not changing, which is again anther article of faith that underpins everything.

This is why even in science the quality of some 'idea' being a '"fact" is a very high perhaps out of reach standard. Even gravity is officially just a "theory".
To the same degree "Truth" is unknowable separate from faith.

[AngryCarl2]

Does this kind of gaslighting work on most people? I can tell you it won't fly in front of a judge.

[monorprise]

@AngryCarl2 A judge has both an ideology and faith in his underpinning ideas. He doesn't care about other people's believes he is elected/hired to impose his own or at least the beleive system of the people he works under.

This isn't Gaslighting, you shouldn't be questioning your idea of reality just looking at it deeper to realize it like all other systems of believes is underpinned by some kind of faith in a system of basic assertions.

The reasons this fact is important is because other people although mostly very similar have different foundational believes.

[AngryCarl2]

If we ignore the bad example set by some a judge must follow the law objectively. It's not part of his job to decide what's true and what isn't.

[monorprise]

@AngryCarl2 In a large system distant from people and accountability what matters is not what a 'judge' should do but what they can do. Following the law objectively means following it as close to the intentions of the people who wrote such law as possible.

As the people who wrote such law are far away and extremely limited in time and capability to both deal with judges that do their own things or even pick judges that reflect their opinion. Judges are in practice free agents subject only to what higher judges in the same boat might be able to do to stop them.

The system of course is too big

[AngryCarl2]

The larger the system, the more reliable it should be. Faulty judgements can be appealed to a reviewing body. In a small system there is more weight for the vagaries of an individual.

[monorprise]

@AngryCarl2 There are a great many supposed benefits of scale in political systems that simply never work out. The most measurable of which is supposed cost savings.

Scale unfortunately creates more problems precisely because while that judge in a larger system might be appealed anther judge who is just as unaccountable to the people who made the law.

The local judge is directly accountable to the judgement and review of the local goverment and people his judgment effects.

So no its not better its worse, If a local judge goes too far in abusing a law, the local legislator will change the law or impeach them. Where scale does help is by giving the minority the right to vote with their feet.

So if the majority itself becomes abusive they can only go so far as they don't drive the abuse minority away.

[Anonymous]

It should be illegal at the same time how don't people see through their bs. We voted last year and so many of us told people to not vote this one guy in. People didn't listen and now we are suffering. Our PM would rather travel the world with his girlfriend and send our money overseas and spend millions of dollars on advertising for something that millions of us told him we didn't want

[Anonymous]

It is illegal! No one does anything about it. We have a senile and incompetent president in office who doesn't even know what day it is. We all knew they were lying starting at the South Carolina primary. They're still lying. Then one day soon when they want to switch to Michelle Obama, suddenly Biden will be senile and out! And the entire news media will go along with it.

[OddBeMe]

Not sure. Presidential candidates lie all the time. I guess should there be a line? Like faking a resume as Santos did? Secretly being Republican like that other bitch above did…forgot her name?

[Avicenna]

As usual, I have to remind you that the latest totalitarian measure that you're proposing is completely unconstitutional.

The best way to deal with something that every politician does is to NOT restrict political speech at all (our actual current law) since if a politician had to worry about be prosecuted for lying, they'd censor, CCP-style (knowing you, that's probably what you want anyway) to cover up their lies (something the current administration has done lots of).

[Avicenna]

And I didn't even mention additional sinister consequences of your totalitarian suggestion:

1) Selective prosecution by ideologues in the DOJ or State Attorney offices on political grounds
2) Who determines if a politician lied? Politicians would want to make as few public statements as possible to avoid #1. It would have a chilling effect on political discourse as well as freedom of speech.
3) Politicians couldn't change their mind about an issue. Would they be held to general positions they took or were assumed to take decades ago?
4) It would further enhance the power of party leaders and big donors as well as ideological prosecutors
5) It would weaken democracy- appointed prosecutors would decide who stays in office rather than voters. A true recipe for political instability.

No doubt there is more. But your proposal to fill our prisons with politicians you don't like, i. e., to create many more political prisoners, is a terrible idea.

[Juxtapose]

You would have to arrest every single politician. Every single one, yes, even including the ones I would personally prefer to be in power over the ones we have now.

Every. Single. Last. Politician. Forever and ever for all of time would be arrested.

[exitseven]

We have the First Amendment so people can still lie. Where is gets bad is when the same liars get re-elected time and time again. Look what we have in the White House. A lifetime layabout professional politician that had fed at the public trough for almost 50 years.

[goaded]

Like everyone else says, politicians lie (by telling people what they want to hear). Honestly, social media should reduce that, because everybody should be able to hear (and remember) everything they say, not just what they say to their group.

There should be laws to allow for recalls, but only with serious hurdles that only outrage at people like those two should be able to clear. But those two turncoats should clear the bar easily.

[Anonymous]

Derrrr should it be illegal for politicians to lie? Durrrrr. Let’s try to legislate human emotions and duplicity, I’m sure if we pass enoug laws people will stop breaking the law. Dirrrr it works so well for stopping shoplifting, assault, shootings, and sexual assault. Durrrr.

Godddamn how do you people get so stupid...

[Surely]

Unfortunately, just about everyone of them don’t tell the honest to goodness truth to get elected. Then no one holds them accountable when they show their true colors.
A lot of their lies are recognizable. You just need to pay attention and not only just listen to social media.
Would be nice to put them on a lie detector during the debates! Wouldn’t it!

[strateguy632]

leave out the part that her "fellow" dnc people bullied her therefore not planned. leave out the "democrats against abortion" group who registered to cancel roe vs. wade.

[Agape93]

If that was the case we wouldn't have any elected officials. So yeah, go for it. Less people interfering in private affairs.

[Grond21]

Haha, way to funny and true

[OddBeMe]

Funny how liberals are now anti government

[Agape93]

So are Republicans. Maybe if they stopped pissing matches, we could get these corrupt fucks out and then maybe, just maybe, we can stop legislating peoples lives.

[Agape93]

But I do love how both sides are finally coming closer to us on the libertarian edge of things. Welcome to the zone

[OddBeMe]

@Agape93 Nope, everyone loves THEIR congressmen. It’s everyone else they hate.

[Agape93]

Doesn't matter in the least

[OddBeMe]

It does when we talk about changing congress for the better.

[Agape93]

... I was talking about getting rid of congress in general. There are no uncorrupt politicians. None. So we kick em out, none will be applicable to come in. Effectively no congress.

[Agape93]

Plus what you consider to be "for the better", likely won't mesh with someone else's idea of it. Then you enter the dangerous waters of thinking your ideas are inherently superior, and legislation like that doesn't end well.

[OddBeMe]

Ok still “kick them all out”…as I just said…everyone loves their congressperson. So it’s a wet dream.

[Agape93]

Sadly

[Dargil]

The First Amendment says no. The politicians lying was illegal, every politician would be in jail.

[FreyaRed]

Yeah with capital punishment to ensure new elections

[richardcory]

Ideally yes, but who can we trust to decide what statements are "lies"?

[KrakenAttackin]

Dude, stop. Right/left are the same with elected officials. Politicians want power, they loon at the landscape only then decide whether to put a D or R after their name.

[jahaims]

It should be illegal for any politician to lie about anything related to their job/politics. There are laws in place similar to this but nothing is enforced

[WhitneySnow]

That should be illegal. But she won’t get re-elected.

[Grond21]

This would end up backfiring so bad. Because whoever is in charge of determining if a lie happened would end up being the real rulers of us

[Quigly]

Funny that a guy is concerned about his right to abortion when it's his mother that should be the most upset about not having had the right.

[OddBeMe]

Wha huh?

[Quigly]

Who Wha?

[OddBeMe]

You’re having a stroke and think that means something.

[Quigly]

You're acting out a stroke?

[OddBeMe]

Seriously what does this have to do with the q?

[disgustingweebtrash]

Yes i'm sure politicans would pass a law that would incriminate all of them, you should write to your local governor and get this world changing idea put into the works

[CoolCatMar1]

Yes but unfortunately it happens a lot and people believe them...

[gorydetails]

I'm impressed. You want every politician arrested? Bold move.

[Johnny4473]

Depends on what you count as being a lie.

1. Not being able to substantiate your statement as the truth
2. Providing what you said is a lie