I wish there was simple three strike policy on any elected official. Three proven lies and they are remove from office for life. And these can be anything. And not knowing at time does not change it.
Only silence or absolute truth should be accepted.
That's how it works right now. Besides Trump, the US's last presidental impeachment was over a sex scandal. They "say" it was because he lied about it, but I think we know better at this point. It's just really hard to impeach because you need 66 or 67 of the Senate to agree on something, not the usual 51.
But yes, we'd need some truly neutral Ombudsmen to back up such a system. And they themselves would need to be accountable should they corrupt. I don't think it's impossible, but hard to do with the current power structures.
"absolute truth" doesn't exist. I understand what you're saying, but the question of when a lie should then disqualify you from office must itself be a political question.
Absolute truth exists, and a claim that it doesn't is self-contradictory. The difficulty is in determining what is or isn't true, especially for empirical matters. (In math and logic the difficulty can vary. And some statements are true by definition, e.g., all unmarried men are bachelors.)
You're confusing logical/mathematic "truth" with philosophical/scientific "truth". While "politics should be based on scientific truth" is an opinion I have some sympathy for, even if it immediately falls apart under any scrutiny. "politics should be based on mathematical axiomatic truth" is a statement so laughable I can only imagine you forgot the context we were talking about.
P.S. I'm not confusing anything and not forgetting any context, and then I get slammed with an absurd strawman, "politics should be based on mathematical axiomatic truth"--not remotely anything I said. Gawd but some people are rude.
The fact remains that absolute truth exists ... "delusional" seems to have no idea what the word "truth" even means.
It was a common argument that ultimately all of the constitutional protections, balance of powers and all that were protected by the Second Amendment - that in the face of losing their liberty, Americans would rise up against an authoritarian government.
Within this administration, a lot of people feel that there has been an assault on constitutional protections, but the people who trumpeted the Second Amendment as being fundamental to protecting American liberty and democracy have largely been silent in the face of it.
It was always BS .. the Founders never intended the 2nd Amendment as a means to overthrow the government they created--the Constitution explicitly says that treason can be punished by death. And the people making that argument were always hypocritical about how they would apply it.
It brought to mind the Four Boxes of Liberty[1]. It used to be toted out by conservatives during the gun control debates, but I haven't seen it used by anyone recently until now.
They did, although back then when votes were public, accusations of bribes for votes were the most common thing, followed by accusations of attempting to rig votes to ostracise someone from Athens.
To be fair, a lie is when some knows the truth but says the not-truth.
Trump may (a) actually believe the things he is saying (i.e., has no firm grasp on reality), or (b) doesn't care enough to actually find out what is true and just says whatever enters his mind to try to get to the destination he wants:
> On Bullshit is a 1986 essay and 2005 book by the American philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt which presents a theory of bullshit that defines the concept and analyzes the applications of bullshit in the context of communication. Frankfurt determines that bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care whether what they say is true or false.[1]:61
You'll never make me believe he doesn't do it on purpose. He thrives on it. There's no reason for him to stop lying before he's dead. Again, just like Cohn.
Sadly a lie travels the world by the time the truth can put on its pants. If Trump did rig any polls, we're still here a year in just trying to get such a court case off the ground. And that year was more than enough to do decades worth of damage.
it's funny you'd ask because it's litterally the first time out of three that he got more votes than his opponent ; and he got more votes thanks to lying, inclusive lying about having won the 2 precedent ones
