Lie detection equates to who barks or yells the loudest

Projection is what psychologists attach to individuals who “project” their own behavior onto others, and, in this presidential race, the practice has run rampant. There are two candidates in particular who so believe that they deserve the presidency that they will stoop to new depths to attain their objective. It is fascinating to see poll leaders in both parties act so similarly on stage when either referring to opponents not present or blaring directly at a fellow candidate occupying the same dais. As much as people like to root for their “champion,” in polite society (which is less and less evident during speeches) opponents recognize others’ right to opine and explain their position.

Monday, February 15, Hillary Clinton somehow believed that barking like a dog trained to spot lying was a favorable image for her campaign. Granted, she was attempting to tag republicans as lying rather than attacking her democrat colleague, but how constructive was the tactic? Did it really promote her as a truth-detector, or did it open the door for some other unflattering comparison? The major point is that Clinton has been caught lying about everything from criminally mishandling classified information to ignoring repeated calls for assistance from one of her charges, an ambassador under death threat in Benghazi. Projection. On the other side of party lines, so unwilling to allow opponents to express their opinions at the debate Saturday night, Donald Trump felt compelled to interrupt with epithets of “liar” as if that, without providing any evidence, was a sufficient argument. This is not debate. It is uncorroborated contradiction and puerile name-calling, plain and simple. Liberal tactic that it is, even President Obama doesn’t regularly engage to this extent, being more devious in launching his attacks. As entertaining (or embarrassing from some perspectives) as this behavior may be, is this really what we want to see in the person occupying a position of power? That the only comeback to criticism is calling virtually everyone a liar? Certainly, it is understood that straight-talk is preferable to sly insults, but unsubstantiated slurs do not constitute fact from whichever side of the fence it originates. Going far over the line was Trump lambasting Jeb Bush in accusing his brother, President George W. Bush, of lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and being responsible for 9/11 because it occurred eight months into his presidency. Here alone is one qualified refutation of Trump’s wild reiteration of the left’s “Bush lied, people died:” a 2011 radio interview corroborating the fact that WMDs were present in Iraq before being secretly and successfully removed to a neighboring country. Did no one seriously wonder where Assad collected the chemical weapons he used against his own people in crossing Obama’s ‘red line?’

---

Along with this, Trump has disavowed his own recent statements touting the benefits of universal healthcare or Planned Parenthood while crying “liar” in the midst of an opponent’s allotted debate time, essentially stealing it. Misdirection and projection. Frustration is so elevated among both liberals and conservatives (for disparate reasons) that voters have thrown in the towel when it comes to civility, let alone simple courtesy, taking their lead from their preferred candidate. Social media is raging with wild and vile accusations against any candidate who is considered a threat to an individual’s personal choice. It should concern the conservative electorate that untempered vitriol, a stamp of progressivism, is unashamedly bandied about in defense of someone who claims conservative values. These are not the only tactics being abused to slash other candidates’ reputations. Trump is a master of utilizing the legal system to apply punitive action. This includes – the dicey application of eminent domain to pressure property owners; charging breach of contract to any business that impugns him; and threats to sue anyone he considers an impediment to his goal. This is not to fault the merits of some of these suits or threatened suits, but it is a habitual fallback for Trump to intimidate via high-priced attorneys. Twice in the last month has he threatened legal action against Ted Cruz for 1) a mistaken tweet originating from two other campaigns and media reporting; 2) for the unforgiveable sin of being born to a United States’ citizen mother while on foreign soil. Both claims being specious. One more thing to mull over… Trump’s willingness to call anyone and everyone a liar would likely backfire in the national campaign should he garner the nomination. In this case, when he attaches the rightful label of liar to Hillary, he will have destroyed his credibility after leveling the charge against everyone he considered a threat to his candidacy. Unfortunately, the simple fact of Hillary being a woman when Trump calls her a liar during a debate – and he will because it is true – he will be called into question for past commentary regarding women, fair or not. Considering the amount of crossover support he has garnered among liberals, Trump’s heavy-handedness that was well received in the republican showdown may come crashing down around him by handing her the liberal sympathy vote. Face it, call a “victim” a liar and it’s a done deal. A heavy price will be paid in allowing emotion to guide our choices in a presidential campaign that far overshadows initial anger and frustration at overreaching government. Along with national security, economic failure due to over-regulation, unwieldy ObamaCare and IRS oppression, the Supreme Court is in play. Pettiness is unaffordable.