Teague wrote:
I think you'd quickly tell who was honest and who was lying though.

Really? Wow.
Given you've identified a way to quickly tell who is honest and who is lying, why are you not presently the worlds leading criminal lawyer?

Teague wrote:we can use a recent example where Trump said Mexicans were rapists and other stuff - demonstrably false

Saying something demonstrably false =/= lying.

Teague wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:I agree that an IQ test probably isn't an especially good way to tell if someone's qualified to vote, both in terms of ability and how elitist it would appear. Certainly wouldn't fly in huge swathes of the US, anyway.

If it were possible to determine with certainty that a politician was lying and fine them, that would be great. I think you might find that as difficult as trying to come up with a test to see if someone should be able to vote, though. You'd find out pretty quickly all the different ways around it.

I think you'd quickly tell who was honest and who was lying though. In debates the honest one would have nothing to hide and we can use a recent example where Trump said Mexicans were rapists and other stuff - demonstrably false. I'm not sure how you get around not telling the truth without looking dishonest though. You might do it a couple of times but too many and people would see through it - normal people of course, not the weirdo cultist ones.

This is the quote I assume you're referring to:

They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

So how do you determine that statement, objectively, is a lie? How many people who crossed the border from Mexico need to be convicted of rape in order for his statement to be true in some way? How do you determine that he knows his statement is incorrect but is saying it anyway?

I know that the gist of what he's saying is bullshit, but it seems obvious to me that it's easy to make a statement unclear enough that you'd have some difficulty determining if what he means by it is objectively true or not. Using a simpler example, if he states a number that turns out to be wrong, he just says "people told me this". So what do you do then, try to figure out who those people are and go after them? Or by lying, do you mean any statement at all that is factually incorrect? It just seems like going down the rabbit hole to me.

Teague wrote:I think you'd quickly tell who was honest and who was lying though. In debates the honest one would have nothing to hide and we can use a recent example where Trump said Mexicans were rapists and other stuff - demonstrably false.

That statement "Mexicans are rapists" is actually a really good example.

There are two standard readings of such a statement with an implicit quantifier:
(i) Some Mexicans are rapists.
(ii) All Mexicans are rapists.

One of those is true, the other is false. How do you legislate for this to exclude someone from standing for office?

It seems to me that other than extended franchise to all citizens another hallmark of democracy is that any citizen can stand for office. Banning someone for saying something which is in use where a regular meaning holds it to be true would be a massive problem.

Incidentally, if that is an exact Trump quote, I'd assume he actually meant neither such thing and was instead implying that the rate of rapists among Mexican men illegally coming to the USA was either "too high" or "much higher than that of locals", which is even more of a problem for breaking things down into being simply lies.

All that said there are examples of clear political lies and I'm sure Trump has told some. It's just unclear how a draconian response to such things would help.

ETA: Beaten to the punch by SAM I see!

SafeAsMilk wrote:So how do you determine that statement, objectively, is a lie? How many people who crossed the border from Mexico need to be convicted of rape in order for his statement to be true in some way? How do you determine that he knows his statement is incorrect but is saying it anyway?

Indeed and are we even sure he's thinking of convictions?

Thommo wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:So how do you determine that statement, objectively, is a lie? How many people who crossed the border from Mexico need to be convicted of rape in order for his statement to be true in some way? How do you determine that he knows his statement is incorrect but is saying it anyway?

Indeed and are we even sure he's thinking of convictions?

I doubt he is, but it seems like the only way for there to be any sort of factual basis for the claim. Technically, he'd only have to find two examples.

Thommo wrote:
All that said there are examples of clear political lies and I'm sure Trump has told some. It's just unclear how a draconian response to such things would help.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think would be an example of a clear political lie? I'm having trouble thinking of something that wouldn't be fairly easy to squirm out of.

Say something like this:

https://www.voanews.com/a/factcheck-siz ... 86759.html

TRUMP: “I made a speech. I looked out. The field was — it looked like a million, a million and a half people.’’

The president went on to say that one network “said we drew 250,000 people. Now that’s not bad. But it’s a lie.’’ He then claimed that were 250,000 right by the stage and the “rest of the, you know, 20-block area, all the way back to the Washington Monument was packed.’’

This one was on Trump's behalf, but wasn't Trump:

Spicer then said, “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe.’’

But again is a clear lie.

They are relatively few and far between though.

Thommo wrote:Say something like this:

https://www.voanews.com/a/factcheck-siz ... 86759.html

TRUMP: “I made a speech. I looked out. The field was — it looked like a million, a million and a half people.’’

The president went on to say that one network “said we drew 250,000 people. Now that’s not bad. But it’s a lie.’’ He then claimed that were 250,000 right by the stage and the “rest of the, you know, 20-block area, all the way back to the Washington Monument was packed.’’

This one was on Trump's behalf, but wasn't Trump:

Spicer then said, “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe.’’

But again is a clear lie.

They are relatively few and far between though.

See Trump probably wasn't lying as he's enough of a narcissist to believe that.

Whereas Spicer probably knew full well what the turnout was but, wasn't exactly going to tell the truth to undermine the fragile ego of his boss.

Sendraks wrote:See Trump probably wasn't lying as he's enough of a narcissist to believe that.

Doesn't matter if he believed it. He can believe his own lies.

Fact is he saw the crowd and he saw the photo of the crowd. A crowd that categorically did not stretch back to the Washington monument.

You can't go around telling people you're seven feet tall even after they correct you and claim not to be lying. The same goes for any directly measurable or quantifiable statement.

I still don't think it's a good reason to have a legal ban on someone running for office. What should happen is that people say they won't vote for a dishonest, narcissistic, dangerous, unstable, childish liar. Somehow, that even now I can't quite wrap my head around, it didn't.

Thommo wrote:
Doesn't matter if he believed it. He can believe his own lies.

If he believed it to be true, then he wasn't lying.
A lie is the act of knowingly telling an untruth.

Sure it is sometimes quite hard to see how someone like Trump can stick to their guns on stuff that people can obviously see is untrue but, the reality is that they do and they honestly believe they're speaking the truth. Its even easier to do if you believe everyone else is lying (as Trump and his supporters do), so their position becomes true by default.

I'm not precluding that people can and do fall into the trap of believing their own lies. As an act of self delusion, it is fairly commonplace.

But, the real trick is in identifying that they knew they were lying at the outset.

Sendraks wrote:

Teague wrote:
I think you'd quickly tell who was honest and who was lying though.

Really? Wow.
Given you've identified a way to quickly tell who is honest and who is lying, why are you not presently the worlds leading criminal lawyer?

Teague wrote:we can use a recent example where Trump said Mexicans were rapists and other stuff - demonstrably false

Saying something demonstrably false =/= lying.

Yes, really in the context of having to use facts. Are you contending for the worlds poorest reader?

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Teague wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:I agree that an IQ test probably isn't an especially good way to tell if someone's qualified to vote, both in terms of ability and how elitist it would appear. Certainly wouldn't fly in huge swathes of the US, anyway.

If it were possible to determine with certainty that a politician was lying and fine them, that would be great. I think you might find that as difficult as trying to come up with a test to see if someone should be able to vote, though. You'd find out pretty quickly all the different ways around it.

I think you'd quickly tell who was honest and who was lying though. In debates the honest one would have nothing to hide and we can use a recent example where Trump said Mexicans were rapists and other stuff - demonstrably false. I'm not sure how you get around not telling the truth without looking dishonest though. You might do it a couple of times but too many and people would see through it - normal people of course, not the weirdo cultist ones.

This is the quote I assume you're referring to:

They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

So how do you determine that statement, objectively, is a lie? How many people who crossed the border from Mexico need to be convicted of rape in order for his statement to be true in some way? How do you determine that he knows his statement is incorrect but is saying it anyway?

I know that the gist of what he's saying is bullshit, but it seems obvious to me that it's easy to make a statement unclear enough that you'd have some difficulty determining if what he means by it is objectively true or not. Using a simpler example, if he states a number that turns out to be wrong, he just says "people told me this". So what do you do then, try to figure out who those people are and go after them? Or by lying, do you mean any statement at all that is factually incorrect? It just seems like going down the rabbit hole to me.

You can start with the very first sentence and then ask yourself why I need the burden of proof when the first premise is utter bollox.

Thommo wrote:

Teague wrote:I think you'd quickly tell who was honest and who was lying though. In debates the honest one would have nothing to hide and we can use a recent example where Trump said Mexicans were rapists and other stuff - demonstrably false.

That statement "Mexicans are rapists" is actually a really good example.

There are two standard readings of such a statement with an implicit quantifier:
(i) Some Mexicans are rapists.
(ii) All Mexicans are rapists.

One of those is true, the other is false. How do you legislate for this to exclude someone from standing for office?

It seems to me that other than extended franchise to all citizens another hallmark of democracy is that any citizen can stand for office. Banning someone for saying something which is in use where a regular meaning holds it to be true would be a massive problem.

Incidentally, if that is an exact Trump quote, I'd assume he actually meant neither such thing and was instead implying that the rate of rapists among Mexican men illegally coming to the USA was either "too high" or "much higher than that of locals", which is even more of a problem for breaking things down into being simply lies.

All that said there are examples of clear political lies and I'm sure Trump has told some. It's just unclear how a draconian response to such things would help.

ETA: Beaten to the punch by SAM I see!

This...

They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.

is factually true or untrue?

Thommo wrote:

Sendraks wrote:See Trump probably wasn't lying as he's enough of a narcissist to believe that.

Doesn't matter if he believed it. He can believe his own lies.

Fact is he saw the crowd and he saw the photo of the crowd. A crowd that categorically did not stretch back to the Washington monument.

You can't go around telling people you're seven feet tall even after they correct you and claim not to be lying. The same goes for any directly measurable or quantifiable statement.

I still don't think it's a good reason to have a legal ban on someone running for office. What should happen is that people say they won't vote for a dishonest, narcissistic, dangerous, unstable, childish liar. Somehow, that even now I can't quite wrap my head around, it didn't.

Which will never happen which is why you need to legislate for it. Like Murder became illegal because you can't have a society moving forward with murder being allowed.

Society cannoty move forward if you are intellectually dishonest and as politicians have proven, they simply cannot tell the truth or keep their word so now we'll have to legislate for it and make them use actual facts.

Is there a problem making people use actual facts? Like when they say Socialised Healthcare is bad for the country - demonstrably false. The NRA would get away with how much shit?

£100,000 per lie - Brexit guys would be bankrupt or never would have span some much bullshit and we wouldn't be where we are today.

Just to get back on track on what I actually proposed

Isn't that the real issue anyway? If all politicians were fact checked and held accountable with a huge fine for each lie they told up to a limit of lies where they're simply expelled from the electoral process, wouldn't that suffice?

Teague wrote:Society cannoty move forward if you are intellectually dishonest and as politicians have proven, they simply cannot tell the truth or keep their word so now we'll have to legislate for it and make them use actual facts.

I agree. I think the key words here are "telling the truth" rather than the focus on "lying" which is complicated for the reasons I've set out. It is straightforward enough to determine if a politician said something to the media or the electorate that was not factually true.

Indeed, MPs cannot make statements to Parliament which are factually incorrect, otherwise they are deemed to have mislead Parliament. Which is why responses to PQs are so carefully checked. Given there is a clear precedent for policing and ruling on this behaviour within Parliament, there is a basis on which it could be extended further.

Sendraks wrote:

Teague wrote:Society cannoty move forward if you are intellectually dishonest and as politicians have proven, they simply cannot tell the truth or keep their word so now we'll have to legislate for it and make them use actual facts.

I agree. I think the key words here are "telling the truth" rather than the focus on "lying" which is complicated for the reasons I've set out. It is straightforward enough to determine if a politician said something to the media or the electorate that was not factually true.

Indeed, MPs cannot make statements to Parliament which are factually incorrect, otherwise they are deemed to have mislead Parliament. Which is why responses to PQs are so carefully checked. Given there is a clear precedent for policing and ruling on this behaviour within Parliament, there is a basis on which it could be extended further.

Exactly! Any political advertising should follow the same process or any offical political campaigning. I think that would be a good place to start right there. See how that works for a few years before refining it with the objective to have fair and factual elections with no room for any conjecture or speculation (BTW this would have obliterated Trump's campaign)

Maybe we could target lying later - we could have "objective lying" - where the statement is actually false and personal lying, where the person believes he's telling the truth but isn't. They can then be asked if what they said is an objective fact and if they answer yes and it isn't, then they can be punished for it. I see nothing wrong for holding people criminally liable for lying to the public (as in, lying in an official capacity like through advertising or campaigning) if they a) can't be arsed to do their homework or b) are deliberately misleading or c) making shit up to fit the narrative or d) claiming "fake news" BUT with the caveat that any "fake news" by news organisations are also subject to being held criminally accountable for it.

Teague wrote:Exactly! Any political advertising should follow the same process or any offical political campaigning. I think that would be a good place to start right there. See how that works for a few years before refining it with the objective to have fair and factual elections with no room for any conjecture or speculation (BTW this would have obliterated Trump's campaign)

The starting point should be what politicians say in the media and in campaigns. If you start targeting political advertising more broadly, you're not actually going after the politicians at that point. As the leave campaign debacle shows, it is easy enough for politicians to distance themselves from such things.

Teague wrote:Maybe we could target lying later - we could have "objective lying" - where the statement is actually false and personal lying, where the person believes he's telling the truth but isn't. They can then be asked if what they said is an objective fact and if they answer yes and it isn't, then they can be punished for it. I see nothing wrong for holding people criminally liable for lying to the public (as in, lying in an official capacity like through advertising or campaigning) if they a) can't be arsed to do their homework or b) are deliberately misleading or c) making shit up to fit the narrative or d) claiming "fake news" BUT with the caveat that any "fake news" by news organisations are also subject to being held criminally accountable for it.

Seems like a lot of effort for very little value add.

Teague wrote:This...

They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.

is factually true or untrue?

It's probably true but misleading. If you read "they" as the nation of Mexico and take the minimum commitment that applies in standard English, then it implies the following:

(i) Some Mexicans are coming to the USA who have lots of problems.
(ii) Some Mexicans are bringing drugs into the USA.
(iii) Some Mexicans are coming to the USA and committing crimes.
(iv) Some Mexicans are coming to the USA and committing rapes.

All of those are true, but uninformative, as any significant population native or immigrant will have problems, and will contain individuals who smuggle drugs, commit crimes and commit rapes. Which means that Trump probably believes (insofar as he actually believes anything) that Mexicans are doing this too frequently, or more frequently than some other notable groups.

I don't actually know if that latter thing is true, or whether it's really an appropriate standard anyway.

Teague wrote:Which will never happen which is why you need to legislate for it. Like Murder became illegal because you can't have a society moving forward with murder being allowed.

That cure is worse than the disease. Having people act as gatekeepers to franchise and society just leads to tyranny rather than freedom.

Teague wrote:Society cannoty move forward if you are intellectually dishonest and as politicians have proven, they simply cannot tell the truth or keep their word so now we'll have to legislate for it and make them use actual facts.

Our societies have moved forwards, a long way if you measure it in terms of rights, equalities, minority protections or wealth. So clearly we don't need these rules in anything like the way we need prohibitions against murder.

Now, I'd agree that Trump is a stumbling block, that it will probably set US society back, but other presidents elected under the same rules have (and hopefully will) move forward. This is incomparable with a society where murder is legal and common, chalk and cheese.

Teague wrote:Is there a problem making people use actual facts? Like when they say Socialised Healthcare is bad for the country - demonstrably false. The NRA would get away with how much shit?

£100,000 per lie - Brexit guys would be bankrupt or never would have span some much bullshit and we wouldn't be where we are today.

I do not think it is as easy as you think it is. And given the remain campaigns got to spend around double what leave did anyway (and also said many things which either weren't or turned out not to be true either) I think the moral high ground there is suspiciously unstable. This has essentially become an argument to use the law to ban certain views, I can't recall that ever having worked out well.

As for the NRA, last time I checked they aren't politicians and aren't in office, so I guess suddenly we're not just taking the vote away from undesirables and banning people from office, we're also saying what private citizens can and can't say in public. Perhaps everyone who repeated an obvious lie about David Cameron having sex with a dead pig would have to get fined £100,000 too.