14 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
14 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

WHOA! Someone is actually acting like they might care!

by seasoned
12 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
The answer to this question is *********DUH*********! Logic, history, various countries, common law, and US LAW(for us mortals), says FRAUD is ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!
FINALLY, the US supreme court "plans" to "decide" if FRAUD is ALSO illegal for "demigods".

US supreme court to decide if campaign lies are legal | Law | theguardian.com

While they're at it, maybe they will take care of the question of whether they can lie about themselves or others.

Steve
  • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
    Here's the problem....who or what is going to decide what is true, and what is a lie?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9113385].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

      Here's the problem....who or what is going to decide what is true, and what is a lie?
      Well, when you use a famous name on the ballot, and don't make your true relationship known,

      When you create fake websites to say someone endorses you when he or she has actually said someone ELSE was the only candidate,

      When you say your views are one way when they clearly aren't.

      When you say your opponent views are totally different from what they are.

      When you say you or your opponent did something or said something that they didn't.

      When you advertise for votes on one side of an issue, and you are actually on the OTHER side.

      etc...

      It is FRAUD! BTW I have seen ALL of the above! SCOTT BROWN, when he ran the first time, actually ran against a guy named kennedy, that apparently WASN'T related, who tried to play both sides of the street.

      Scott ALSO ran against at least one person that had several sites that said a show host supported that person. That show host was on the radio, and I listened. He had to make it VERY clear what sites were his because people tried to steal his reputation.
      They said the host supported THEM, when he DIDN'T!

      For the last one, a company advertised on a network, I nvestigated and found they were on the OTHER side. They were SNEAKY!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114153].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Some lies are pretty easy. I've seen politicians claim to be for or against issues when their vote record shows very obvious support for the opposing side of the issue. Other stuff might have to wait to be found out.......but it would give us an easy way to get rid of people found out to be liars and thieves. Right now they are all acting like our offices are a free for all. Anything goes as long as they make some heavy duty cash. It's really time they stop being able to lie scott free to get it.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9113559].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Some lies are pretty easy. I've seen politicians claim to be for or against issues when their vote record shows very obvious support for the opposing side of the issue. Other stuff might have to wait to be found out.......but it would give us an easy way to get rid of people found out to be liars and thieves. Right now they are all acting like our offices are a free for all. Anything goes as long as they make some heavy duty cash. It's really time they stop being able to lie scott free to get it.
      Again, you are not answering the question.

      Who gets to decide what is true, and what is a lie?

      It's a nice idea in theory, but I'm afraid it's 100% unenforceable because there are no unbiased arbitrators to be found.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114029].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

        Again, you are not answering the question.

        Who gets to decide what is true, and what is a lie?

        It's a nice idea in theory, but I'm afraid it's 100% unenforceable because there are no unbiased arbitrators to be found.
        If it is found to be an intentional lie or, if very material, just clearly untrue, they should be convicted of fraud. SIMPLE! If you can't prove it, like if a few shoots WERE fired at hillary, and they had to take shelter for a time, then let it go.

        Now what Hillary might SEEM iffy. But it DID further hurt bosnias reputation, may have helped get her votes, etc... The video shown DOES indicate that all seems pretty normal.

        And the punishment for fraud varies. It can be a fine perhaps, or a LONG period in jail.

        HEY, if they could charge ME, why not hillary, etc....? If you are going to say anything to exempt them, legally, it should exempt me.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114188].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          If it is found to be an intentional lie or, if very material, just clearly untrue, they should be convicted of fraud. SIMPLE! If you can't prove it, like if a few shoots WERE fired at hillary, and they had to take shelter for a time, then let it go.

          Now what Hillary might SEEM iffy. But it DID further hurt bosnias reputation, may have helped get her votes, etc... The video shown DOES indicate that all seems pretty normal.

          And the punishment for fraud varies. It can be a fine perhaps, or a LONG period in jail.

          HEY, if they could charge ME, why not hillary, etc....? If you are going to say anything to exempt them, legally, it should exempt me.

          Steve
          Except the political censorship committee you seem to want to set up would be manned by Democrats who would give the people you're upset with a total pass on their lies, while slamming Scott Brown for telling the truth.

          Is that really what you were hoping for?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9116200].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

            Except the political censorship committee you seem to want to set up would be manned by Democrats who would give the people you're upset with a total pass on their lies, while slamming Scott Brown for telling the truth.

            Is that really what you were hoping for?
            Then the courts could throw THEM in jail for fraud. SERIOUSLY, if one is held above such a law nobody is really free.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9116218].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              Then the courts could throw THEM in jail for fraud. SERIOUSLY, if one is held above such a law nobody is really free.

              Steve
              Except they won't, and you know it as well as I do.

              All this will become is another avenue that gets abused and misused in the quest to attain and retain power. The people in power will be emboldened to lie even more, and the political censorship board will just become another tool to manipulate the public the people in power will have control over.

              Sorry to disappoint you, but this will do the exact opposite of what you seek.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121722].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

                Except they won't, and you know it as well as I do.

                All this will become is another avenue that gets abused and misused in the quest to attain and retain power. The people in power will be emboldened to lie even more, and the political censorship board will just become another tool to manipulate the public the people in power will have control over.

                Sorry to disappoint you, but this will do the exact opposite of what you seek.
                A government you can't trust is worse than no government at all.

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121957].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
                  Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                  A government you can't trust is worse than no government at all.

                  Steve
                  Not with that much power over free speech I don't. And you shouldn't either.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9122806].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

                    Not with that much power over free speech I don't. And you shouldn't either.
                    Free speech was NEVER supposed to allow you to slander, lie on an interview, etc.... In the US, we are supposed to ELECT many of the people in government, VOTE for them. HOW can it be a VALID vote if those voting are even lied to about positions, intent, and qualifications? If they did the same thing in an interview, they could be out on their EAR!

                    Do you realize that there is a FEDERAL law that TRUMPS protected class, etc.... that says that if a material lie is found on your resume, or a related document, you can be FIRED! OBVIOUSLY, that ALSO doesn't apply to politicians! One politician was caught in a lie about her heritage. That is worse than it would be in many cases since she got various benefits, etc... for it. OH, she got a lot of bad press but I don't think ANYONE did anything about them.

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9122859].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    Remember this one? I can't imagine what advantage this lie would have for a politician. It wasn't even the usual false promise:
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9113969].message }}

Trending Topics