Linda Qiu - PolitiFact
On Tuesday night in Las Vegas the Republican presidential candidates once again took the stage for their final debate of 2015. The first debate since the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, national security and strategies to defeat ISIS were anticipated to be and were contentious topics of debate. In personal jabs at recent statements or voting records, each candidate asserted the merits or their position on each issue while attacking other candidates' proposed solutions.
However, many facts, statistics, or other things cited by candidates during the debate simply weren't true. The website PolitiFact is dedicated to analyzing politicians' statements and assessing their factuality, picking out some key points from the debate and with this being the final debate before the primary season officially begins, most of what candidates have said will be what sticks with their base and will be quoted as "fact" into the election season.
What impact does truthfulness (or lack there of) of candidates public assertions have on the public during the election season?
Should candidates be reprimanded for incorrect statements?
Where is the line between bending the truth for a political purpose and actual slander?
If restrictions were enacted, could candidates simply misspeaking put them at risk?
The lack of truthfulness among the candidates raises some serious questioning regarding their credibility. As presidential candidates, they should be held to a high standard, because what they say is generally taken seriously by the American public. While I don't think they should necessarily be reprimanded, they should have to admit to their wrongdoings and/or make it so that it is widely known that what they said was false. Bending the truth is different than actual slander in that bending the truth should not change the outcome. Restrictions seem unnecessary, but if candidates continue to "bend the truth" they may need to be put in place.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of truthfulness is a major issue, especially in these elections. People are growing increasingly concerned about ISIS and the state of national affairs, and politicians who will lie in order to fool/appease the public are not what they need. Candidates should not necessarily be reprimanded, but the public should have a reliable source of information with which they can judge the accuracy of candidates' comments, which will in turn negatively effect the candidate's popularity.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of truthfulness is a major issue, especially in these elections. People are growing increasingly concerned about ISIS and the state of national affairs, and politicians who will lie in order to fool/appease the public are not what they need. Candidates should not necessarily be reprimanded, but the public should have a reliable source of information with which they can judge the accuracy of candidates' comments, which will in turn negatively effect the candidate's popularity.
ReplyDeleteThe candidate's failure to tell the truth brings their liability into question. The final Republican presidential debate of 2015 was viewed by many and will continue to be analyzed by the media for a while after. If the candidates mention something that isn't true, the media will definitely pin that against them. Because they're running for president, stating false information will hurt them immensely in the election process and no matter what, they will be reprimanded by the media and press for mentioning invalid points. Also, since the media is unescapable and persuasive, the majority public is most likely going to side with those reprimanding the candidates for offering untruthful facts.
ReplyDeleteI think that candidates should be reprimanded for not telling the truth. If they are not factually accurate and truthful, they are not suitable to be president. They are allowed to highlight certain truths over others, however they cannot make up their own truths. I would like candidates to be brought into bad press over telling lies, therefore allowing me to be a more informed voter and not support liars.
ReplyDeleteTruthfulness is an absolute necessity during the campaign season because it reflects upon the people's ability to trust in these candidates, and their character once elected to office. Candidates should absolutely be reprimanded for their incorrect statements or at least be publicaly called to stand for their comments
ReplyDeleteThe Republican party may be approaching its final decade. With ridicule from both sides, this years candidates truly reflect the lunacy which is birthed from chaos. The candidates manipulate fears and generally attempt to seem so macho that there ideas have hints of fascism. It is a very big deal that there lies go uncontested. There should be a system. I'm not sure how it would work but I'm fairly certain other countries have a system similar to this in place. Perhaps the government could work with politifact. By continuing to spew gibberish they make elections dumber which in turn has the same effect on the electorate.
ReplyDeletetheir*
ReplyDeleteAlthough politics is already known to stretch the truth and exaggerate at times, the fact that the candidates running for President are blatantly lying on national television is very controversial even if its to gain voters amongst the population. If they begin to lie about current issues and statistics, what more after they are put into office with even more facts and data? While I'm not saying that there should be strict restrictions on limiting the amount of data each candidate says, I am for making it known nationally, and not just on some websites, about just how much of what each candidate is saying is actual truth and not something made up in order to gain political favour.
ReplyDeleteAlthough politics is already known to stretch the truth and exaggerate at times, the fact that the candidates running for President are blatantly lying on national television is very controversial even if its to gain voters amongst the population. If they begin to lie about current issues and statistics, what more after they are put into office with even more facts and data? While I'm not saying that there should be strict restrictions on limiting the amount of data each candidate says, I am for making it known nationally, and not just on some websites, about just how much of what each candidate is saying is actual truth and not something made up in order to gain political favour.
ReplyDeleteThough candidates sometimes have to manipulate the truth for their benefit, they should not have free reign to say whatever they please, regardless of the integrity of the statement. The lies may not be caught during the debate, but the analysis afterwards will reveal the lies and ultimately hurt the candidate. There are very lenient rules during debates where the candidates end up spouting their own agendas and flouting the questions. Candidates need to be held accountable for the fallacies in their statements. Seeing how they react to being reprimanded will help the public see how well-versed the candidate is in times of ridicule. While candidates misspeak at times, they often use the excuse of misspeaking when they want to spread comments bordering on slander. The public needs to be able to trust the words coming from the candidates, and the only way to do so is to make the candidates accountable for their statements.
ReplyDeleteWhile candidates do have free-speech rights, they do not have the right to abuse them. The American people do not need to be manipulated, they need to be led. It is pathetic to see candidates play on the fear caused by the tragic events as of late just to get a few votes. So yes, there should be repercussions when candidates blatantly make up facts to their benefit, as they have a responsibility to follow ethical and truthful guidelines just like anyone else. Especially when it comes to running for the position of leading the entire country of 'Murica. #TRUMP4PREZ
ReplyDeleteTo speak dishonestly in a public political debate is taking advantage of the public's trust for their candidates. It raises the important questions regarding their credibility and qualifications to be President. It is obvious that there is dishonesty in politics, however, there should be a limit to the extent of this dishonesty. We, as citizens, elect candidates and vote on them based on who we trust to improve the future of our nation. We deserve to know that the things the say will be truthful. Although the application of restrictions may be over the top, it is important to pay attention to the politicians that we can truly trust and keep in mind that not all politics is honest.
ReplyDeleteTo speak dishonestly in a public political debate is taking advantage of the public's trust for their candidates. It raises the important questions regarding their credibility and qualifications to be President. It is obvious that there is dishonesty in politics, however, there should be a limit to the extent of this dishonesty. We, as citizens, elect candidates and vote on them based on who we trust to improve the future of our nation. We deserve to know that the things the say will be truthful. Although the application of restrictions may be over the top, it is important to pay attention to the politicians that we can truly trust and keep in mind that not all politics is honest.
ReplyDeleteTruthfulness, although very important to the very informed voters (which a high majority of people are not), doesn't have that much effect on the public because the public doesn't know whether or not they are being truthful, so they just assume they are. It would be great if there were a way to reprimand candidates who lie, but it doesn't seem possible. The only chance of making truthfulness an issue is if candidates start pointing out and accusing other candidates of lies.
ReplyDeleteMany candidates bend the truth so that it sounds the best to the public. No candidate is going to be completely straight forward with their views, because they do not want to seem so harsh or lose any voters that are on the edge of who to vote for. Politics is dirty, its just the way it is. Nothing can be changed about it.
ReplyDeleteCandidates being dishonest leads to the public further mistrusting our government. Although questioning the actions of our government is, I believe, a good thing, the more hatred US citizens feel towards the government, the worse our society is. I definitely think candidates should be reprimanded for incorrect statements, it is the right of the American people to know the truth. Often times, bending the truth for political purposes and slander are the same thing. To lie, knowingly and for your own benefit, is slander. Restrictions would definitely pose a risk to candidates.
ReplyDeleteA lack of truthfullness from candidates in the running for the presidency only hurts their position amongst the voters. If they can't be trusted before they are elected, what will they hide from us when they are president. Bottom line is nobody wants to vote for a liar. Unfortunately almost all the candidates lie about their past, so it is up to the voters to pick out the ones who remain truthful. Candidates should not be reprimanded for their incorrect statements because the United States voluntarily allows free speech. It is up to the people to decide if a liar should be voted in. The line for bending the truth and slander is when the candidate has to completely make up a story which he or she has no ties to in order to make their campaign more successful. Restrictions can not be enacted because of the potential for a misspoken statement by a candidate. It is to risky and not fair to the candidates who are under a great deal of pressure during debates.
ReplyDelete