>Oh what a shock.... politicians do lie (promise things that cannot achieve) to get elected. If one actually believe the promises of a politician to get in office, one must be incredible naieve.
>
>BTW, both camps are eually guilty. remember: "Read my lips... no more taxes". They will promise you enything to get in office. In fact they will have to or otherwise they won't get elected in the first place.

>Couple of things:

>First, yes, the "read my lips, no new taxes" was bad. But comparatively, what Barack Obama has done is far worse. Bush made the statement once. Barack Obama repeatedly (over 23 times in a public setting) stated a narrative that was a complete lie.

I'm not going to Judge on this, because I simply do not know what this is about exactly, nor am I interested to dive into it. I'll leave any judgement on others


>Second, the reason I harp on Obama is because of the limited vetting that was done on him to begin with. During his run in 2008 and even 2012, he painted himself as the man "above" Washington politics, a man whose word you could trust. Not only has he invalidated every claim he made, he has turned out in many respects to be WORSE than your average lying politician.

Again no judgement from me on this. To me it sounds more like your interpretation where others have a different viewpoint. I'm more interested in het netto result, whether he will be able to go into history as the president who has made change happen. And as I said earlier, it is too early to Judge. Perhaps 5 years down the road we will know.

>Third, his promises got him elected, not his capabilities. Read the Samuel Jackson interview in Ebony magazine in 2008 for the reason he got elected. I would challenge anyone to offer narratives that he was elected on any merit.

Since when are presidents elected on merit? I mean we got the same problem over here. Elections are seldomly about facts, promises etc. Its a 'America's got talent show' where the candidate who makes the best performance and make the other look bad is able to entertain the public will be the winner. Its only a pitty that those shows cost billions of dollars.

Which campaign need facts when the public wants to see a mudthrowing bitchfight?

Don't take me wrong this is not an attack on the american public. More or less the same is happening here, though there are significant differences. As long as the public let entertainment rule over fact and merit, this won't change.