HOW TO STOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES FROM LYING

[warrior1972]

CNN)—Was Donald Trump correct when he said that thousands of Muslims were cheering in Jersey City when the World Trade Center came down on September 11, 2001? Was Hillary Clinton correct when she said the gun industry was the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability? Was Carly Fiorina correct when she said that a Planned Parenthood video showed a living, kicking fetus with someone saying, "We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain"?

The answer to all three is of course not.



Yet, there were no consequences to the candidates for these untrue and misleading words. The question we should ask is -- why not? Would these presidential candidates have said these things if they had to swear to them under penalty of perjury?



us.cnn.com/2016/01/28/opinions/gabriel-presidential-candidates-facts-lies/index.html

[101ABN]

At long last, some of those "shovel-ready" jobs!

Hyperbole, it seems, is a bumper crop in election season.

[Sailor]

"Would these presidential candidates have said these things if they had to swear to them under penalty of perjury?"

Maybe. Look at who is mentioned in the article.

Lying to the electorate is as natural to a politician as swimming is to a fish, complete honesty without embellishment as unnatural as a trout on a Harley.

If a politician makes a claim and my B.S. meter doesn't react my first inclination is to do a calibration check on the meter or to back down some of the filters protecting it from overload.