• It's not about individuals making promises at all. The problem is people imagining it is about that, when really, it's about parties. And we shouldn't have parties. It only results in organized deceit, and encouraging people to enteam as "us versus them" imaginarily.
    • Linda Joy
      So is that a no?
    • Mr PantsFellDown
      I'm saying people make the mistake of thinking leadership is about judging the individual running, when really it isnt about that individual at all, he's just a figurehead. It's the agenda of the party you'll be allowing by voting for him that you have to worry about.
  • Maybe not 'lie detector tests' but definitely 'random drug tests'. Most illicit drug usages within the US are done by White affluent males although they are the least criminalized. So you can't really blame them if they don't make too much sense with their ways, words, ideas, etc...
  • wouldnt be a bad idea
  • Lie detector tests are bunkum: they have no scientific basis. As most politicians are former lawyers, they know this fact well....
  • No because we know they lie all the time.
  • There would be a lot more comments like this: I don't recall..... I don't recall......... Otherwise most would peg the meter.
  • They are such professional lairs they would fool the lie detector.
  • No Reporters should when they're reporting something as fact.
  • No. They would just add that to the rest of their believable lying skills. Then you would have a new breed of politician that would be the Best Detector-Passing Liars. You'd eventually get the Lance Armstrong of lie detector test fraud.
  • What's that going to do? Make them truthful and honest?
  • Do not put your trust in Princes nor the son of man, who cannot bring salvation (Psa 146:3).
  • it cant hurt
  • It;ss been proven lie detectors don't work. "The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, "it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In real-world situations, it's very difficult to know what the truth is.z' Source: The American Psychological Assn.
  • No, it's not necessary. The easiest way to tell if a politician is lying is to watch their lips. If the lips are moving ...then the politician is lying.
  • definitely, they need to
  • They all should schedule regular Town Hall meetings in person with their constituents. That may keep them honest.(or get them voted out)
  • waste of time none of them would pass. We all know they are liars. Would dementia Joe ever pass a lie detector test?
  • It wouldn't do any good. They're already violating their oaths of office - which, in the courts, is called "perjury".
  • well many are liars thats for sure..ya cant trust most!!!!!!!
  • No. One law for all. The rights of politicians are (for the most part) the very same as my rights, and they should have EXACTLY the same rights as myself.
  • They should be properly vetted just like any job applicant.
    • 11stevo73
      John Fetterman? Joe Biden? Dianne Feinstein?
  • Unfortunately, a lie detector will only tell you if the person THINKS they are lying...and then, it isn't accurate all the time. But yeah: it'd be great if politicians had to wear a lie detector whenever they were giving a public speech. Suddenly they'd be a LOT more careful about what they say. They'd resort to verbal misdirection and semantics, but at least an intelligent person would know what they were really saying. *** There's a very interesting science fiction trilogy by Isaac Asimov, the Foundation Series. In one of the books an ambassador from a very powerful but foundering galactic empire approaches a relatively new "nation" (planet) and works out a treaty with them...supposedly for their mutual benefit. The ambassador is quite...well, simple-minded, though he has a passion for history. A linguist (this is science fiction) does an analysis on all of the speeches and the treaty, logically reducing them to a series of plain and simple statements. It turns out that the ambassador's long and stirring speeches were saying absolutely nothing! (He was actually extremely clever, and merely putting on a facade of being simple-minded.) The treaty, likewise, promised literally nothing from the Empire but required considerable concessions from the new nation. *** That's what politicians would learn to do if required to wear a lie detector when giving speeches. They would give rousing speeches that were absolutely empty of any worthwhile statements.
  • No, because it wouldn't stop us voting for her.
  • Probably wouldn't work. There's really no such thing as a lie detector test per se, but there are polygraph tests that look for certain signs of stress often associated with lying. But for one, they don't work on sociopaths, and for two you have to obtain a good baseline from truthful statements. Since politicians are all sociopaths and none of them can tell the straight truth to save their lives, you wouldn't get past the calibration procedure.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy