S.Shorland
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,263
All of them will parrot Ron's words but many,only to gain votes.Put them to a video'd polygraph test designed to cover Libertarian questions.
Lie-Detector Test To Select (Genuinely) Principled Candidates.
- Thread starter S.Shorland
- Start date
itshappening
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 12,355
Lie detectors have no scientific basis. It's a cottage industry of pseudo-science.
^this. We played with one in HS Psychology class. Total joke. Said I was being truthful when asked if I was the President of the US.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 39,958
Truth-Bringer
Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 601
It all comes down to actions versus words. You can see Ron Paul's principles through his voting record. We obviously can't view this with a candidate who has never held office before. But for those who have this is a very easy test.
But for just those candidates with no prior political experience, a hard grilling via interview can help weed out most of the pretenders.
But for just those candidates with no prior political experience, a hard grilling via interview can help weed out most of the pretenders.
Slutter McGee
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,482
Dumb idea. You don't want a liberty candidate to give straight answers on secession. You want them to get elected. Not get labeled as confederate nutcase racist.
That doesn't make the conclusion correct, fair, or just. It is just a simple reality in most districts. Until enough happens to educate the American Public on the true meaning of the idea of secession, it would be completely retarded for a liberty candidate to make that part of his or her platform.
Slutter McGee
TheTexan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 27,424
Who said anything about making it part of the platform? Just a simple yes/no to a single question would suffice, and that you believe is sufficient to ruin one's political career?
I bet Jim DeMint wouldn't be such a pussy to avoid answering a question on secession. He sure wasn't afraid to talk about nullification, and he did just fine.
Pussy politics hasn't gotten us shit, Slutter. Grow a fucking pair
awake
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Messages
- 4,358
Lie Detectors are a bit phoney. I had one administered to me for a job, and the magic in the fraud is in the 2.5 hour "education" portion that basically indoctrinates the test taker on how invincible the machine is. With this idea firmly planted a questionnaire is administered; most usually confess 90% of whats being searched for. The 20 min actual test is simply measuring the fear level of the indoctrinated subject while the same questions are re asked. If the test subject believes the machine is magical they will show physiological responses, if not ,no measurable signals. increased heart rate, palm sweat, and breathing are all fear responses.
They are a great device for pathological liars and psychopaths...Neither register any response to the machine. Law enforcement and security services using such tests to recruit are guaranteed to get these types as they can consistently pass them. The only other person that can pass one is a genuinely open and honest person who has lived a fairly non eventful life.
It's all in the indoctrination process. I believe most politicians could beat a polygraph due to psychopathy or pathological reasons.
They are a great device for pathological liars and psychopaths...Neither register any response to the machine. Law enforcement and security services using such tests to recruit are guaranteed to get these types as they can consistently pass them. The only other person that can pass one is a genuinely open and honest person who has lived a fairly non eventful life.
It's all in the indoctrination process. I believe most politicians could beat a polygraph due to psychopathy or pathological reasons.
Last edited:
Slutter McGee
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,482
Having a pair, or growing them, doesn't mean you should ignore the political and social realities that currently exist. Sure, and established Senator or Congressman could probably get away with saying that no problem. Ron Paul has been able to thankfully. But a non-incumbent candidate anywhere other than the deep south? You are fucking deluding yourself if you think an answer on the subject wouldn't cause an uproar.
There are three things we should want out of our liberty candidates, and we should recognize these things even when the are clouded by political speech designed to get someone ELECTED.
They should be against foreign intervention. They may phrase this as being hesitant and more careful about invading countries. Or taking a look at military spending as well.
They should be against the Patriot Act and other domestic reductions in our Liberty. They may phrase this as a need to make sure we protect the 4th amendment or by saying that we should be careful to protect civil liberties.
And finally they should be for reducing the deficit. This is the most difficult to judge since every Republican claims it.
As far as Pussy politics not getting us shit. I beg to disagree. There are now 4 Liberty congressmen instead of one, and 2 liberty focuses senators. If you really think they could have gotten elected shouting secession at the top of their lungs, then you are nuts.
Sincerely,
Slutter McGee
TheTexan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 27,424
Who said anything about shouting secession at the top of their lungs?
Maybe you misunderstood my point. As far as the context of this thread goes, my point is not to get secession into the platform, nor into the public debate. Asking a candidate their position on secession, in this context, has one and only one purpose: identify if they are a liberty candidate or not.
Secession and sound money are at the heart of liberty. Every liberty in existence depends on these two fundamental principles. If a candidate does not 100% support either of these, they are not a liberty candidate. Plain and simple. If you disagree with that, then you don't understand secession or sound money.
They don't need to shout it from the rooftops, but they do need to demonstrate an understanding of these, or what's the point? If the only thing you care about is winning elections, then run whoever the fuck you want, Rubio, whoever, and call it a fucking victory.
If you want to elect liberty candidates, then you've got to first figure out who is and isn't a liberty candidate, which you can't do if you're too much of a pussy that you're afraid to even talk about liberty.
Last edited:
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
Bah, humbug. Just make them sign a real, legally binding contract (not just that "swearing fidelity to teh Constitution" hocus pocus) with real, serious consequences if broken.
TheTexan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 27,424
What entity is currently responsible for the enforcement of contracts, HB?
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
Depends on the situation. Some people use private arbiters(i.e. http://arbitrationarizona.net/ ), some rely on government courts. There are probably other arrangements I don't know of as well. Regardless, my point is that the "social contract" is a farce and isn't sufficient.
Icymudpuppy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,497
This is actually a good idea. I think having a binding contract wherein a politician must resign his position for breaking it would be good. Enforcement by a private security firm would be best, I think.
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
Why, thank you, sir!
Can you imagine how many politicians would have long ago resigned if they were actually required to do what they say like the rest of us? 
ETA: IMO, a politician should be required to pay damages his decisions cost as well.
Last edited:
liveandletlive
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,164
i think we should just drug test the guys already in. some of these folks are obviously under the influence
Similar threads
