6
6
0
When listening to the candidates talk about accomplishments and their desires when they get into the White House, they're being fact checked as they say these things and often times party immaterial, they're either not telling the truth at all, partial truths, or spinning the truth to fit a demographic. Is being honest a lost art? If so, how as a country can we change that?
Election 2016
Democrats
Republicans
Integrity
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 9
5
5
0
I could be cynical and ask: Has anyone in modern times ever told the truth and been elected? Actually, the answer is "Yes". Most candidates tell the "truth". They speak to a narrative that they hope is popular with most voters. Given the extensive Gerrymandering of election districts throughout the nation, it's pretty easy to select the correct one. Once elected, the incumbency syndrome takes over and they are reelected with regularity. No need to tell lies, ever.
Focusing on the candidates is a waste of time. The real problem that we need to discuss and correct is with We the People. We are simply terrible when it comes to casting our ballots and We get the government that we deserve. To be perfectly fair, I believe that most people have the government that they deserve. Even those poor bastards in North Korea or anywhere in the Middle East have the governments that they deserve. I feel that my belief is defensible by logical application of the sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence: "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."
How can you argue with that?
If our government is lying to us we need to exercise our right to "...alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government..." Actually, it's as easy as falling off a log. We can accomplish it without firing a single shot. Every two years we can "...institute a new Government..." Sadly, We the People don't.
So if our politicians actually are lying to us, it must be because We want them to lie to us.
Focusing on the candidates is a waste of time. The real problem that we need to discuss and correct is with We the People. We are simply terrible when it comes to casting our ballots and We get the government that we deserve. To be perfectly fair, I believe that most people have the government that they deserve. Even those poor bastards in North Korea or anywhere in the Middle East have the governments that they deserve. I feel that my belief is defensible by logical application of the sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence: "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."
How can you argue with that?
If our government is lying to us we need to exercise our right to "...alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government..." Actually, it's as easy as falling off a log. We can accomplish it without firing a single shot. Every two years we can "...institute a new Government..." Sadly, We the People don't.
So if our politicians actually are lying to us, it must be because We want them to lie to us.
(5)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
CPT Jack Durish - But the "people" don't vote anyone in....the person with the deepest pockets do. For some reason none of the candidates had a dinner and invited me to talk about how I feel, or what I think is important going forward. No one came to my town and had brunch there. I live right outside DC, so there's really no excuse not to, but I'm a regular Joe...nothing special. There are a few billionaires who were sought out immediately when time came to get money lined up and in order to get votes. I agree with your thoughts on electing new unproven talent that has potential, but I KNOW someone will say "we did that with Obama" why do it again? And to allow anyone to become "career" politicians is only setting us up for the same thing we've been getting for decades. It still boggles my mind knowing there are two candidates who's family members have been President and they seriously want to be President. It's like a slap in the face to me personally. Put term limits on every office, and bar those who meet those requirements from going into lobbying. If we let them lobby, then they should just stay in office to me.
(0)
(0)
PFC Carl Willmon
Regretfully we have too many in this country that believe our governments job is to punish those who are successful in the misguided belief that the only way they can get ahead is if the government helps them. I wish they would wake up and realize the only one in control of your success or failure is yourself. The more government tries to help you the more they hurt you. Most running for office start out with good intentions but soon learn that to win they have to tell the voters what they want to hear not what needs to be done. Voters are there own worst enemy when it comes to government
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
SSG Warren Swan - I have been opposed to term limits ever since the concept was advanced a couple decades ago. I was offended at the idea that We the People couldn't be trusted to vote for the best candidate. After all, wouldn't term limits force use to replace good elected officials as well as the bad? Well, it seems that, no, we can't be trusted.
Can someone "buy an election?" I don't yet believe that American elections are rigged like some third world Banana Republic. I may be naive, but I just won't accept that one yet. Can elections be "bought" in terms of undue influence by expensive slick advertising? Yes, I'll buy that one, but only so far. Politicians can spend all they want and still not be elected if they are a member of the "wrong" party in a Gerrymandered district (which is just about every election district in America).
Lastly, does money influence incumbents? Absolutely. The cost of running a campaign is so great that winning an election consigns the candidate to a living hell of constant fundraising as soon as the ballots are counted. For example, Representatives in Congress spend the vast majority of their time raising money for themselves and their party. Their party leaders set a quota and if they fail to meet it, it's likely that they won't have the party support when they run for reelection. So, if you go to visit your Congressman in Washington, don't expect any attention unless you have a fat check pasted to your forehead.
Can someone "buy an election?" I don't yet believe that American elections are rigged like some third world Banana Republic. I may be naive, but I just won't accept that one yet. Can elections be "bought" in terms of undue influence by expensive slick advertising? Yes, I'll buy that one, but only so far. Politicians can spend all they want and still not be elected if they are a member of the "wrong" party in a Gerrymandered district (which is just about every election district in America).
Lastly, does money influence incumbents? Absolutely. The cost of running a campaign is so great that winning an election consigns the candidate to a living hell of constant fundraising as soon as the ballots are counted. For example, Representatives in Congress spend the vast majority of their time raising money for themselves and their party. Their party leaders set a quota and if they fail to meet it, it's likely that they won't have the party support when they run for reelection. So, if you go to visit your Congressman in Washington, don't expect any attention unless you have a fat check pasted to your forehead.
(0)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
CPT Jack Durish - I can respect that you are against term limits, and your reasoning is solid. But for every one that gets the heave ho that was a "good" one, how many more are there really that are bad? Term limits gives the country a chance to "experiment" and not rely on a group of people who make it their business to stay in office. New minds, new ideas, new chances to move forward (or backward). Right now there is a core group from both sides who've been in office longer than many on RP have been alive. While they might be effective in what they do, in my personal opinion, after 50 years in, it's time to let the "new blood" have a chance. They have wisdom to pass on. I'm not going to say they're all ignorant buffoons. But there comes a time, where it is TIME. This happens to us in the military, in the civilian world, in life. Politicians have a "wear by" date, but it keeps being extended, and again, and again to the point where no one bothers to check it's just "one of those things" you accept.
I say "buy" in the sense that politicians when announcing a run, turn to the deepest pockets they can find (Koch brothers for ex), and plead their case to them why they should put money in their coffers to bankroll them into office. Now this will not come "free" and without a "price". No one is crazy enough that I know of to say here's a million dollars and I won't expect a favor later on for this. Trump even mentioned this very fact when he said he donated money to the Clintons. He did them a favor, and she returned the favor. So in that, the candidate is "bought" even though it does cost a substantial amount to campaign for janitor at a local school. I might've used a poor grouping of words in what I was trying to make my point.
As far as my "reps" in congress.....they have nothing for me, and vice versa. I think back to elections past and who would I have voted for if the chance to do it all again...The ones who made it into the White House would have my vote today if we could turn back the clock. There is a sliver of my beliefs in each of them. From Clinton to Bush to Obama, all of them have a trait that I like, a trait that was needed at the time, and a trait that helped the country survive. None were superstars. In their own ways, they are all SOLID presidents. I'm not going to try and convince you or anyone else of that. Opinions are like... Congress on the other hand would've had to clean house. No more dynasties, no more 50yr terms, no more of what we've had. When a senator lives to be almost 100 and he's still in office, something is wrong.
I say "buy" in the sense that politicians when announcing a run, turn to the deepest pockets they can find (Koch brothers for ex), and plead their case to them why they should put money in their coffers to bankroll them into office. Now this will not come "free" and without a "price". No one is crazy enough that I know of to say here's a million dollars and I won't expect a favor later on for this. Trump even mentioned this very fact when he said he donated money to the Clintons. He did them a favor, and she returned the favor. So in that, the candidate is "bought" even though it does cost a substantial amount to campaign for janitor at a local school. I might've used a poor grouping of words in what I was trying to make my point.
As far as my "reps" in congress.....they have nothing for me, and vice versa. I think back to elections past and who would I have voted for if the chance to do it all again...The ones who made it into the White House would have my vote today if we could turn back the clock. There is a sliver of my beliefs in each of them. From Clinton to Bush to Obama, all of them have a trait that I like, a trait that was needed at the time, and a trait that helped the country survive. None were superstars. In their own ways, they are all SOLID presidents. I'm not going to try and convince you or anyone else of that. Opinions are like... Congress on the other hand would've had to clean house. No more dynasties, no more 50yr terms, no more of what we've had. When a senator lives to be almost 100 and he's still in office, something is wrong.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Sure. The issue is that Truth is Subjective (as opposed to Facts which are Objective), and you "tailor your message" for a specific crowd.
I can say things like the "Women earn 78% of what men earn." Believe it or not that is a "True" statement. It is not a "Factual" statement however, unless you use some very creative math, or LOTS of caveats.
We tend to accept "Truths" over "Facts" is really the problem. Give me facts any day. Let me come up with my own truths.
I can say things like the "Women earn 78% of what men earn." Believe it or not that is a "True" statement. It is not a "Factual" statement however, unless you use some very creative math, or LOTS of caveats.
We tend to accept "Truths" over "Facts" is really the problem. Give me facts any day. Let me come up with my own truths.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
None of the response options fit for me. I think the answer is yes and no. Politicians tell the version of the truth they believe voters want to hear. When it comes to politics in particular, the truth is relative. At the end of the day, it's important for voters to do research and truly understand the candidates before voting. A great website to use for research is http://www.ontheissues.org It's fairly non-partisan and simply tells you the voting record (with cited sources) as well as what their platform is (with cited sources).
OnTheIssues.org - Candidates on the Issues
Tired of media reports of fundraising and poll results instead of policy issues? At Issues2000.org, you can see the view of every candidates on every issue.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google