Election 2016

Does Clinton's DOMA Lie Matter? Does Trump's Immigration Lie Matter? Do Any Lies Matter?

Is honesty relevant in an election about punishing the enemy?


"Jim Webb had integrity. How'd that work out for him?"
Credit: WisPolitics.com / photo on flickr

In what is the most exhaustive debunking of Hillary Clinton's failed attempt at revisionist history, BuzzFeed's Chris Geidner sorted through thousands of documents from the Clinton Presidential Library and found absolutely no evidence that Bill Clinton's White House had any concerns about a possible anti-gay constitutional amendment when they passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In reality, at the time, both Clintons did not support same-sex marriage recognition. They were in the majority back then. It was nowhere close to politically popular:

For the most part, White House staffers assumed Clinton would eventually support DOMA once the bill's introduction was certain. Bill Clinton had already stated his opposition same-sex couples' marriage rights. In 1996, Clinton repeatedly marked his approval of talking points on same-sex marriage, as it is referred to in the documents and will be referred to throughout this report, and DOMA; the talking points included his opposition to same-sex marriage and opposition to providing federal benefits to same-sex couples.

While some of the few out gay employees and their strongest straight allies worked in the spring of the year to find a way to keep Clinton from supporting DOMA, the internal conversation surrounding the bill mostly concerned when Clinton would announce his support.

And Clinton ended up announcing his support sooner rather than later. On May 23, 1996 — less than three weeks after the bill was introduced in Congress — Clinton announced that he would sign the bill if it came to him as he understood it.

Through it all, though, no one discussing the bill in the Clinton administration — from the White House senior staff to gay staffers and their strongest allies to the press office to Justice Department lawyers — ever mentioned any concern about a federal constitutional amendment.

So no, contra to any claims from both Bill and Hillary Clinton, the president did not sign DOMA to protect gays from a constitutional amendment banning same-sex recognition. And it's insulting to everybody's intelligence for them to say that he did.

Unfortunately, the larger question is: Does it even matter? If you look through comments at sites that post about this admittedly small scandal, you'll find lots of defenses along the lines of "But Bernie Sanders evolved on gay marriage, too"; "The Republicans are lying about 20 things while you're complaining about this"; and, of course, "KOOOOOOOOOCH BROTHERS!" The lying isn't important. What matters is that they beat the Republicans! This is an election about punishing the enemy, both domestic and abroad.

But that the Clintons had no reason to lie about this in the first place is what makes the lie so strange and worthy of paying attention to. The Clintons "evolved." Obama "evolved." A lot of Democrats and not a small number of Republicans "evolved" on gay marriage. As I said when I wrote about this lie earlier, Clinton seems to be trying to disprove accusations that the Clintons hold positions on the basis of shrewd political calculations and is doing so in a way that's very obviously politically calculated. Apparently the Clintons have decided that it is important that they are seen as leaders and protectors on gay rights, even though they weren't back then. The only logical explanation is that Hillary Clinton is really worried about Bernie Sanders. But getting caught out like this only highlights the Clintons' well-established flaws to primary voters. Ironically enough, it shows that Clinton hasn't "evolved" when it comes to her reputation for dishonesty. And she can't blame this one on Trey Gowdy.

But Clinton isn't the only one getting caught in flat-out lies that will probably lead to no consequences whatsoever. In Wednesday's debate, Donald Trump insisted that he hadn't criticized Sen. Marco Rubio's immigration reform proposals by calling him "Mark Zuckerberg's personal senator." Except he had. On his own website. It's still there, in a section calling for a very unconservative forced increase in the minimum wage for certain types of immigrant employees in order to encourage companies to hire American citizens.

Unfortunately, because the debate moderation was such a disaster and perceived as hostile to the candidates, Trump appeared at first to be a victim of a failed gotcha attempt. Exacerbating the problem was that his lie caught moderator Becky Quick flat-footed and unprepared. She didn't know where the information came from (and stupidly asked Trump, permitting him to throw it back in her face as a media concoction). It wasn't until after a commercial break that CNBC was able to find the source and confront a completely unrepentant Trump with it. It didn't matter anymore. The moderators had completely lost control of the debate and they had lost their credibility. Trump simply talked about his own immigration plan. Several media folks monitoring the debate tweeted out links to the truth, and it was mentioned in some stories, but the absurd and completely unnecessary lie from Trump did not have any staying power. Nobody seemed to care.

Actually, the people who already don't like Trump and Clinton care a lot, but they're "the enemy." And as I said before, this appears to be an election increasingly focusing on punishing "the enemy," whether they're immigrants, terrorists, rich people, corporations, or the other party. When Clinton was caught out on her lie by activists, her campaign's response was just another variation on "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Politicians lie, obviously, of course, especially during elections. Even when they don't lie, they make promises they don't know whether they can keep, they mislead, they deflect criticism rather than address it. There's a significant voter undercurrent that seems to be embracing it, because the important thing is that those terrible other people—whose lies are so much worse—don't win the election.

NEXT: Friday A/V Club: Vintage Halloween Safety Films

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But that the Clintons had no reason to lie about this in the first place is what makes the lie so strange

    I think you mis-spelled “unsurprising”. The Clintons have a long history as compulsive liars, who tell lies even when there is no reason to.

    1. YOU LIE!

      /Joe Wilson

      1. THAT’S NOT TRUE!

        /Justice Alito

        1. INARTFUL!

          /Justice Roberts

          1. CHOOM GANG!

            /President Obama

            1. WINNING!

              /Charlie Sheen

              1. BOB SAGET!!!

                /that dude with Tourette’s who’s all the rage on teh YouTubes….

                1. WINNING!

                  /Donald Trump

                2. Every time I see or hear his name I harken back to South Park…

                  Knock knock
                  Bob Saget

          2. I WANT THE TRUTH!

    2. Old Farmer (black guy) on Obumbles: “That son of a bitch would lie if the truth served him better.”

      As for the Hilbot, I don’t think any thought goes through her head or that she has any understanding of the things she says. She just makes the noises she thinks will get her more support. Truth or lie have nothing to do with it.

    3. How do you tell when a Clinton is lying? Their mouths are moving.

      1. “I know you lyin’, cuz your lips are moving,
        Tell me do you think I’m dumb?”

        Might as well be the Hilldabeast’s campaign themesong.

      2. To be fair, that’s not necessary true.

        Sometimes she lies in writing.


    4. Black lies matter!

  2. Unfortunately, because the debate moderation was such a disaster and perceived as hostile to the candidates, Trump appeared at first to be a victim of a failed gotcha attempt.

    Waddayknow – when the media sacrifices its credibility, it has no credibility. Who could have seen that coming?

    1. Who could have seen that coming?


      I was told the answer to these questions always is Hitler….

      1. Actually, I think this time it’s Baby Jesus.

        1. Prof. Dum Dum?

          Funny thing about use of the name Hitler?this past weekend my friend Bob was giving a lecture, talking about how Odin sacrificed himself to himself by hanging on the Yggdrasill, etc., but accidentally subbed the name Hitler for Odin, didn’t notice, & kept on. The audience noticed, but didn’t say anything to him until he was done, then we all had a good laugh. Pretty hilarious considering Hitler hadn’t been a subject of any of the material, so it just seemed to come out of the blue.

      2. Hilter. Alex Hilter. Not Hitler, you moron.

        1. *Droog* Alex?

      3. You know who else thought the answer was Hitler?

        1. Alex Trebeck?

    2. Trump was just lucky he had never read his own immigration white paper.

      1. That’a what I was thinking. HE never said it. Even if he was the one who typed it he still didn’t say it.

        It’s all about the definitioin of IS.

  3. Look. They felt it was true at the time. That’s what matters.

  4. Sometimes she lies for practice. Sometimes out of habit. I wonder if she even realizes she’s lying or can recognize the difference between a true and false statement?

    1. It all depends on what the definition of truth is.

      1. And what the definition of definition is.

  5. Do Any Lies Matter?

    What are you, five? Grow up. If you’re believing anything these people say to begin with then you deserve what you get.

    1. In any case, it’s not about whether you “believe” them. It’s about whether you will hold them accountable.

      1. This.

        “I take responsibility” is a real whopper.

        1. I always wish someone would follow up with “So you paid a fine? You are resigning? Are you paying a civil judgment? What does that mean in terms of practical consequences?”

          1. Anderson Cooper had a chance…but ended up being a Chris Matthews instead.

        2. Ah, but they’re honest in one way – damn few of them will ever use that sentence.

      2. someone in the commentariat resolved this some time back: principles vs principals. The partisans put infinitely more stock in WHO says something that in WHAT is said. Their candidate’s lies are not really lies, they are nuance or need context; it’s the other side’s words that are absolute bullshit.

        1. The great thing about being a Libertarian partisan is you get to call both parties names! Like, Stupid Party and Evil Party, for example.

          1. It was Bill Buckley AFAIK who came up w those names for the Republicans & Democrats, respectively.

    2. I think it’s a valid point, in that the candidate’s true believers don’t care if he/she is lying, and the opposition assumes he/she is. It only matters if there’s anyone undecided out there, which there really isn’t anymore.

      1. There are plenty of undecideds out there. And while they love them some flowery rhetoric and empty promises, they usually don’t like bald-faced lies. This could hurt Clinton… if it weren’t her turn.

        1. From what I’ve read (and certainly from the behavior of the campaigns), the number of undecideds has shrunk tremendously over the last several decades. By “undecideds”, I mean people who are open to voting for either Democrats or Republicans, depending on the circumstances…not people who don’t care and won’t vote at all, and not nominal “independents” who, in truth, are mostly ideologically inclined towards one party or the other.

          The almost exclusive focus on fringe Kultur War issues in modern campaigns is the best evidence of this…those ads are designed to foster turnout, not to convince anyone of anything.

          1. It’s about time for TEAM GOODGUYS to extinguish TEAM BADGUYS for good!

      2. Do candidates have any true believers? I think their supposed believers are lying about believing.

    3. If you’re believing anything these people say to begin with then you deserve what you get.

      That’s not the way it works. If you know that somebody will always lie, it’s just as easy to get the truth out of them as someone who always tells the truth. Just believe the opposite of whatever they say. For the good liars, there’s sometimes the truth, sometimes literal truths interpreted as lies, sometimes literal lies interpreted as truth, sometimes some element of truthiness, sometimes incredibly laughable whoppers – they have to mix it up enough so that you never know what or how much to believe. If you go around claiming to be the Queen of Ruritania and the inventor of the coffee cup long enough, you can also admit to people that you like to fuck dead goats and still everybody’s going to be real damn shocked when they find all them dead goats in the crawlspace after you die.

      1. Indeed the best way to lie is to tell a truth that won’t be believed.

  6. This is an election about punishing the enemy, both domestic and abroad.

    Maybe this is just me seeing things from an outside perspective, but aren’t all elections about whipping up panic and punishing the enemy?

    1. Not in today’s post-racial society, you boob.

      1. I’m sure HM will be along soon with links to some post-racial boobs.

          1. They’ll be man boobs. Sorry.

          2. They’ll be man boobs. Sorry.

    2. Elections these days are about turning out the base, nothing more. Which is why we are subjected to endless culture war bullcrap every two years…except here in Virginia, where our off-year state elections mean we’re subjected to it every single year.

      Truth, lies, whatever. It’s all about the “narrative” and hitting enough of the right emotional notes to get the idiots to the polls.

    3. You forgot rewarding your friends and allies, so elections are about whipping up panic, punishing your enemies, and rewarding your friends and allies.

  7. “No new Taxes” sure seemed to sink Bush Sr’s reelection campaign

    1. Debates are about how a candidate carries themself under pressure not about things as irrelevant as facts. What do you think this is Shackford, the Dark ages?

      1. And, really, what better way to put someone under pressure than to tell lies about them?

      2. Sam Donaldson correctly identified modern debate questions as “tests of Glibness”.

        That was in the B.T. era. So it ain’t nothin’ new.

    2. And Clinton’s promise of a middle class tax cut that he ignored once in office did not prevent his reelection.

    3. “No new Taxes” sure seemed to sink Bush Sr’s reelection campaign.

      And to this day that idiot thinks the problem was that he broke a pledge he shouldn’t have made (and felt coerced into making) rather than that he raised taxes regardless of whether or not he had pledged not to. Push come to shove, Bush said if there’s an imbalance between taxes and spending what else can you do but raise taxes? Unraise spending? Unraise isn’t even a word! How can you unraise spending? There is no such thing as unraising spending. It doesn’t even make sense.

    4. Bush lied straight to the base of his own party.

  8. This statement is false.

    1. Grrr….I hate you (true statement)

    2. ::Clinton self-destructs::

      “Well how about that? She was an evil fembot all along…”

  9. #BlackLiesMatter

  10. And it’s insulting to everybody’s intelligence for them to say that he did.

    Kind of like how it’s insulting to everybody’s intelligence for her to say that what she did with her email was permitted and normal.

    Or that she didn’t send and receive classified info illegally over that email.

    Or that Bernie Sanders sexistly complained about Hillary, specifically, “shouting” about gun control.

    Or that she believes women should control their own bodies when in fact she does not believe that about sex workers or drug users.

    Or pretty much anything else that comes out of her mouth, since all she can do is lie, lie, lie.

    1. Oh and perhaps the most insulting of all: that it was about a video.

      1. I’d have more respect for Hillary if at the next debate she said:

        “Yeah, so I’m a liar. What your you going to do about it, bitch, vote for Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump?”

        She should then cackle uproariously, drop the mic, and exit the stage.

        1. Except for the maniacal cackling that might be a better campaign strategy than her current one.

          1. I dunno, it’d be fitting for Halloween.

        2. And then do a victory lap around the beltway after she’s elected in a landslide.

        3. SNL covered that for her already.

      2. I have to agree with you. That probably was worse than any of the others because both Ms. Clinton and the administration threw someone in jail over that one.

  11. BuzzFeed’s Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed

    Scott, can you tell me again who this guy writes for?

    1. Quit being such a buzz killer, dude

    2. He reports for the Department of Redundancy Department.

    3. Hitler?

      1. HEY!

    1. Oh sure, harmless lies are called “white” lies while the really horrible ones are “black” lies.


  12. It’s like when creationists “lie for Jesus.” Lying is ok as long as it is done to further the cause. Supporters do not care that their leader lied as long as the lie was told in furtherance of the cause.

    1. -1 Climate Hiatus

  13. Lies don’t matter.

    In 2012 Romney and every wingnut in the country falsely claimed that Obama “apologized” to the world/Middle East/whatever despite any evidence of such.

    1. Lies don’t matter.

      *falls off chair in shock that PB would believe such a thing*

    2. What’s a Romney? And what does it have to do with the current election cycle?

      1. Shh, Shrike still things Bush is President. And to be fair, there’s an odd logic to his thinking that.

        1. So we’re not in the 4th term of W’s presidency?

    3. Romney and every wingnut in the country falsely claimed that Obama “apologized” to the world/Middle East/whatever


      Speaking of easily disproved lies . . . .

      1. What a load of shit from the Heritage liars.

        We’re arrogant, bitches! is hardly a lie. It is more like braggadocio.

      2. You need a “sorry” or “apologize” dude.

        If your wife caught you cheating and your reply to her was “I got some pussy!” that is hardly an apology.

        1. Magic words. Got it.

          I guess when somebody says “I’m sorry you’re so stupid you were offended by what I said”, that counts as an apology for you?

          Well, then let me apologize . . . .

      3. I’m not sure all of those count as apologies.

        In any case, why shouldn’t a president apologize for bad things the government has done?

    4. Here we were speaking about liars and one pops up ?

    5. It isnt surprising that you make no distinction between truth or lie, that you only serve a narratve, but that you tell such stupid, easily disproved lies.

      I don’t think you are sane shreek.

  14. And as I said before, this appears to be an election increasingly focusing on punishing “the enemy,” whether they’re immigrants, terrorists, rich people, corporations, or the other party.

    Unfortunately, not only this election, but our whole political culture and, increasingly, our whole social culture, to boot. A lot of it seems to be about signaling in world where who you hate is increasingly all that’s left to establish your affiliation with the collective.

    None of it ends well. Unfortunately, it usually ends badly for those of us not fully affiliated with one of the collectives first.

    1. I plan to lay low and let the two collectives whittle themselves down first. Then libertarianism will have it’s heyday… in the post-apocalyptic hellscape that remains. Crap…

      1. +1 roving cannibal rape-gang

    2. Social media plays a magnifying role in this. Such a sad and uncreative thing to use Facebook and Twitter to do nothing but political signaling.

      I see it as very similar to people getting in fistfights over which sports teams they support. Really? You’re going punch each other bloody over that?

    3. the quote you cite is what happens when everything is politicized, especially the apolitical. We’re having mass pants-shitting over Halloween costumes, for crying out loud.

  15. In order for lies to exist, truth must exist. Since truth is completely relative, lies only exist for those who have experienced the particular truth that the lie denies. That’s why most lies are largely irrelevant to any conversation.

    1. Yay, the comical illogicality of Postmodern thought!!

  16. Lies do matter, but only when the media beats the drum loudly enough. Lies hurt Clinton and Gore who ran because of his ties to Clinton. Lies hurt Bush the Greater. In the first instance, the media could not ignore Clinton being caught in a lie on national TV so blatantly. In the first, the media beat the drum that Bush lied on taxes as loudly as they could because they didn’t like Bush. So, yea, lies matter. Only when the media decides they do, however.

  17. Go back to the NPR interview where Hillary got so pissed at Terry Gross for suggesting Hillary was saying exactly what she’s saying now. Hillary (and most everybody else) seemed to think Gross was persistently trying to get Hillary to admit she was always in favor of gay marriage all along but knew it wasn’t politically popular to say so at the time just so that Gross could get a “gotcha” statement she could use to accuse Hillary of flip-flopping on the isssue for political purposes. My own take on the interview was that Gross was repeatedly offering Clinton an “out” on the question of whether or not she had always been firmly on the side of the angels vis-a-vis gay rights and simply couldn’t understand why Hillary was being so obtuse in not understanding what Gross was offering her. I think Gross fully expected Hillary was going to reply that “of course I’ve always been fully in favor of gay rights and anybody that knows me knows that that’s true, but at the time if I had said it the evil bastard right-wing extremist Nazi GOP would have nailed me to the cross for it and the gay community along with me. So, as much as I wanted to speak out on the issue, I knew that my public support would bring unwarranted criticism to the gay community – and believe me, I have many dear, dear friends in the gay community – and so I selflessly sacrificed myself for the greater good by remaining silent on the matter.”

    1. Hillary is pathologically inclined to lie and distort. It would be easy enough for her to say, “hey, once upon a time I didn’t favor gay marriage, but I grew and evolved to a different viewpoint.” It’s not like she has to fight hard for the LBGT vote, anyway.

      Part of it, I think, is that she almost entirely lacks political talent. She’s a brittle, unpleasant hack with no feel for retail politics. She spent her career either being a behind-the-scenes enforcer for her husband, or being in political positions that were gifted to her, where she wouldn’t have to deal directly with public opposition.

      1. she almost entirely lacks political talent.

        and that’s really it. Her husband is the consummate schmoozer, able to make a deal with “that son of a bitch in the House/Senate/wherever.” She is not capable of that. Hillary’s view is zero-sum, reflexively partisan, and highlights the worst of the left – measuring victory in terms of did her opponents lose. Bill, and others like him, understand that it is possible for both sides to come out with something and maybe even for that end result to be worthwhile. She is not there and never will be.

        1. There is also the fact that she and Bill are getting older. You notice with a lot of old folks their ability to follow social cues and empathize with others in a discussion starts to decrease. If Hillary had tried to have this campaign ten years ago it’s completely possible that she wouldn’t have been nearly as tone deaf.

      2. It’s historically worked for the Clintons, and it will continue to work.

        What does RC say, you get more of what you fondle, less of what you kick in the nuts?

    2. “I think Gross fully expected Hillary was going to…”

      I wonder if it came as a shock to Gross to realize that Hillary is well below average intelligence. I wonder who Gross is going to vote for.

  18. Dammit, Reason, how come you only ever criticize Republicans and praise Democrats?

    1. Cosmos vs Yokels

      1. I’m thinking I may just go full monarchist. Why not? Compared to what we have, most monarchies have ruled with a light hand.

        1. There’s quite a movement for that, RCD.

          1. There’s quite a movement for that, RCD.

            They’re called Obama Supporters. Just not the ‘light hand’ part.

            1. I re-read my own comment, and it seems utterly racist.

              1. It was a shitty thing to say.

        2. Ok, sure. But only if I am king.

        3. Monarchies are for the weak. Go dictatorship or go home.

          1. Unless it’s the kind of monarchy where you have to kill the old king to become king.

            1. You keep what you kill could be a workable system.

            2. +1 Iron Throne

        4. Why not? Compared to what we have, most monarchies have ruled with a light hand.

          I can tell you from personal experience that Communist China operates with a lighter hand than Washington does.

        5. Well, cops are basically knights, minus the chivalry, and the media/education complex is effectively a new priesthood (per the understanding of “freedom of press” as an estate privilege, especially), so whatever attempt we made to eradicate classism was a failure. Arguably, it never succeeded at all, we just turned to race-based slavery and then race-based pseudo-classes as a alternative in order to kick the habit, and then when it turned out to be worse (like heroin to morphine addiction) we went back to the devil we knew.

    2. I think that’s an accusation mainly lobbed at Nick or Suderman, not necessarily Scott, Jesse, Brian, Matt, Rico, ENB, or the others that I can’t think of now. Shikha and Richman are mainly just accused of sucking.

      1. Sullum was getting it this morning because he had the nerve not to mention everything bad about Bernie Sanders in a post which narrowly and specifically addressed his positions on federal drug policy.

        1. As one of the more irritable posters here, even I thought that wasn’t the best place to make the argument.

          I did think that failing call out Sanders for not introducing one single bill to legalize pot while he was in the Senate was a legit complaint. But hey, you can’t always think of every angle when you’re writing an article, I get that.

          I do think that Reason shows signs of falling in with the larger media herd on issues of editorial emphasis and priority, and I disagree with their attempt to reach out to the socially liberal young ‘uns by adopting the flawed premises of identity politics and privilege that underly much of the chatter about culture war issues.

  19. Lies do not matter. Character does not matter. Competence does not matter. All that matters is the letter after the name. The tiebreaker is “hairdo” or, possibly, “most ‘free’ stuff promised”.

  20. “And as I said before, this appears to be an election increasingly focusing on punishing “the enemy,” whether they’re immigrants, terrorists, rich people, corporations, or the other party.”

    Or in the case of Trump supporters, their own party.

  21. black lies matter

  22. Bill’s hausfrau wouldn’t recognize the truth if it jumped up and bit her in the ass She has always found ways to make something more of her life than being Bill’s wife of convenience and apologist by becoming the most ineffective Secretary of State in history, It;s one thing to live a life as loyal wife of a serial adulterer, but claiming the high road on gay rights is a bit too much, just like her dodging non-existent sniper fire in the Balkans. By creating a story to be able to rewrite history she has done what she has done all her life. Lie through her teeth. Just like she did when she wrote off a loyal Ambassador who had written hundreds of emails about his security and she now says it was his fault for not knowing how to get around her staff.

  23. Why Didn’t Trump Include His Grand ‘Touchback’ Amnesty Scheme In His Immigration Manifesto?
    Answer: Because he knew that revealing this scheme (that he’s been talking about on interview after interview since April 14, 2015) would cause a Conservative revolt and very likely cost him the GOP nomination, so he simply left it out.
    As a result, there is no “touchback” Amnesty mentioned nor is there a mention of his wanting to deport all 40 to 60 million illegals in the U.S. in his manifesto.
    However, Conservatives and others paying attention will not let Trump off the hook re: his Amnesty. We want “the truth”! We want to know “how” he’s going to get “touchback” thru both houses of Congress and we want to know how many illegals-once-removed he will try to bring back..


  24. Does it even matter? The lying isn’t important. What matters is that they beat the Republicans! This is an election about punishing the enemy, both domestic and abroad.”

    This is what multiculturalism *means*. Different cultures are actually *different*.

    Honesty is not a *universal* value. Nor is freedom. Nor is rule of law. Nor is fair play beyond the tribe.

    Keeping up with and propagating the lies of your team signals solidarity with the team. We have always been at war with East Asia.

    Also, making bold faced lies (“not even a smidgen of corruption”, “the dog ate my hard drive”,”no classified email”, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”) is a way of asserting dominance. To look someone in the eye and state a lie that *everyone* knows is a lie is a classic way of saying “fuck you, what are you going to do about it?”

    The Progressive Theocracy strives to dominate and control by *force* – why would anyone think they would *frown* on lying? For people who *live* to assert power over others, these assertions of dominance are an end in themselves.

    Sure, they’ll lie instrumentally *as a means* to deceive, to achieve power to assert over their neighbors. When they have to. But it is much more delicious to lie *as an act* of asserting power over their neighbors. That’s the end in itself. Smirking, gloating, with a question shining in their eyes – “What are you going to do about it?”

    Or, more recently, “Like with a cloth or something?”

  25. at the Benghazi committee, she lied about not soliciting Blumenthal comments. An email showed her comment, thanks and keep it coming. She told the Ambassador to Turkey and her daughter, the attacks were not a result from the video but were terrorist attacks. Yes the administration went on for weeks it was about the video. The initially refused to turn over emails and the server. She then said she deleted the emails and wiped the server. The FBI is recovering the classified emails and finding many of them. She claimed none were classified.
    Clinton doesn’t know about the truth. And to her supporters it appears not having integrity, honesty or being trustworthy is a problem. It is all about winning. The end justifies the means is the motto of the Democrats. The Democrats have no honor and appear to hate the country by supporting Clinton

  26. It’s more than lying – it’s about character. The founders wanted and realized we needed people of god character to be in government, at least at the national level. Back then good character was synonymous with values based on a Christian heritage. They did not intend a religious state, but it was in their makeup and so was an integral component the founders in relied upon in designing our government.

    But it’s not just about the character of the people we choose to represent us. It is also about our own character. If we are not of good character, where is the incentive to choose someone of good character? If history is any guide, good character is in short supply in those elected and the electorate. We get the government we choose – and deserve.

  27. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ———- http://www.4cyberworks.com

  28. Here’s my perspective.

    You don’t vote based on the president you want. They all suck. You vote based on how you want them to chose a Supreme Court Justice.

    And currently? Even reliably conservative Roberts is “too liberal” for the GOP. So I’m kinda scared of just what kind of justice would be acceptable to them these days.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.