Polygraphs for Politicians?

originally posted by: Danbones
i think the best thing would be to hook the poli graph up to consequences..like elect-roshock
and then just to be really nasty
set the electroshock switch to RANDOM

eta
and if that fails
put em in net without a jock

a reply to: dfens

Water board them huh? With some of the stuff they pull, I'd be hard pressed to oppose it. Too bad they'd cave and tell ya what you wanted to hear so it stopped

a reply to: Danbones

Good old torture. Hell, they've been torturing our country long enough, you reap what you sow. (Half joking)

Polygraphs don't work .. not really. It's rather easy to lie and pass them ... and it's rather easy for a person who is telling the truth to fail them. And considering how skilled the politicians are at telling lies ... I'd bet they'd all pass even when telling lies ...

Another source: polygraphreality.wordpress.com...

This goes on to say that psychopaths and people with other antisocial personalities cannot beat a polygraph, and research shows that sometimes psychopaths actually exhibit stronger physiological reactions than other people when taking a polygraph test.

So there's 2 sources saying opposite things about psychopaths' abilities to pass polygraphs.

Even if it's possible for them to pass, surely it would at least weed out a large amount of them. At least the ones seeking office for their own gain who may not be sociopaths. Just my opinion of course.

a reply to: seeker1963

In my lifetime I've found that if you're completely open and honest about everything, people respect you a LOT more. I've screwed up at my job, sometimes small things sometimes big things, but it was never a problem because I was honest about it. When you own your mistake, that's the end of it, but if you lie, you will have to maintain it.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Well there's a reason they're not admissible in court, you know that. I'm not so sure about their inaccuracy though. There's a reason they're given to potential law enforcement officers, and I think there's reason enough to administer them to potential politicians.

Nothing is perfect, I'm sure people have been wronged by polygraphs. I just think people supposedly serving the people should be subjected to the same tests we give those who are there to protect the people.

a reply to: whyamIhere

Yup, that could be a whole other discussion. They'll drug test people flipping burgers but not those who directly affect our country. Ludicrous.

Maybe we should just throw Holy Water on them, and vote for the one that is burnt the least...

Just wanted to throw it out there, that it is more or less illegal to teach people how to beat the polygraph. Not illegal, per se, but if you start holding classes down at the community rec center, scary looking dudes show up and tell you to stop. I believe there's a thread or two on ATS about it. I'm kinda interested myself now so I'll try and find it and link it back here in due time.

a reply to: oldetimehockey4

Do you believe politicians should be subjected to polygraphs?

Yes, yes i do.

And not only that, the ought to be on performance related pay...the worse the country gets, the less pay they get, the better we do, the better they do.

Also, they should be made accountable for lying. If they lie, and are caught at it in relation to their office and position of serving the public, they go to prison..no ifs and no buts.

It is an honour to be a politician and serve the public for the betterment of a nation..if they disrespect their office and the duty to the public by deliberately lying, it's right and just that they should pay and be punished for it.

Only those who have a genuine sense of duty and strong desire to serve in politics for the good of the public first, and their own interests second need apply IMO.

It is a great idea, but I think the problem would come in this way: we give a polygraph to someone running for office, and then attempt to prevent them from running for office because of a failure of the test, and all of the sudden there is a lawsuit over the Constitutionality of such an action. Something like this does need to be done though, for the simple fact that those who seek power are usually not the ones who we want representing us. But how can we know that when they put a smile on their face and tell us what we wish to hear?

I think it is virtually accepted across the US that politicians are corrupt. This should be the prevailing belief anyway, considering all of the stuff that occurs on a daily basis. The problem that prevents us from doing anything about it is that the corrupt individuals already have the power. We cannot run them out of office, only other politicians can. And often times if one of these individuals is going to do something that is not above-board, they will cover their backs as much as possible. And then there are politicians who would not wish to prosecute their colleagues simply because they do the same things. There are likely many variables at play here, and it is hard to say to what extent corruption actually exists.

We know it is there, first of all. But when you have politicians who are often times doing what they're supposed to be doing, albeit not very well much of the time, who then do something that is not right or legal, and continue on to doing regular stuff again. IF everything they did was illegal or morally wrong, it would be easier to point fingers. But when society doesn't even know what is going on half the time, it is hard to say who is in the wrong...Especially if nobody says that anything is wrong. So it often times takes someone alerting the people to a wrongdoing, like Snowden did.

The US government should not be allowed to take away the Constitutional rights of the population by recording their conversations. And they say they are just recording them, but we don't really know. We know what we are told, and THAT is a huge problem.

originally posted by: oldetimehockey4
I'm not so sure about their inaccuracy though.

I am sure. I had to take one for a certain job ... and I passed it just fine ... and if it had been accurate, I shouldn't have.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Of course they're not going to be 100% accurate, but I think a few errors would be worth the greater good of weeding out potentially corrupt political candidates.

Some will argue the other side of it - potential candidates getting screwed out of a position because of a faulty test every now and then, but there's a lot of things that have changed because of a few bad seeds. Like most peoples jobs for example. All it takes is a few people abusing privileges, sometimes just one, to have them taken away from everyone.

Probably the best idea I've heard for 20 years.

Imagine having good honest people running the country, but it sounds like a fairytale :-(

originally posted by: oldetimehockey4
Hello ATS.

Admittedly, politics are not my strong suit. I created this thread to invite all members to discuss an idea. I did a search and couldn't find anything pertaining to this specifically. Also if I'm posting in the wrong forum, mods please correct it.

Police officers exist to protect and serve the public and are subjected to polygraph tests before they're hired. Before you post "yeah right, check out this video of a police beat down on a citizen," know that this thread isn't about that.

Politicians exist to serve the people, not themselves. Yet all I hear about are politicians involved in this scandal and that scandal. I think they're so far removed from the ideals they were sworn in to uphold. I also believe that they don't just all of a sudden become corrupt after they're elected.

Why do we require our police officers to take polygraphs and not our politicians? Do you believe politicians should be subjected to polygraphs, and what sort of questions do you think should be asked of someone seeking office?

I think the reason politicians aren't subject to lie detector tests is due to the fact they are always lying. What they should give them is a "truth" detector test and be able to tell the rare occasions when they actually tell the truth.

originally posted by: oldetimehockey4
a reply to: dfens

Water board them huh? With some of the stuff they pull, I'd be hard pressed to oppose it. Too bad they'd cave and tell ya what you wanted to hear so it stopped

I am thinking we Drone board them, they are hooked up to a polygraph when they lie a drone flies low drops the water and starts to circle. Then for every lie we deduct 10K from their bank account for fuel to heat the water being dropped by the drone. Of course while this takes place headphones will be playing the star spangled banner by Hendrix, and marijuana joints will be smoldering between each of their toes, while Geraldo Rivera films youtube videos for the world to see.

Then the citizens will claim it never happened, the videos were falsified and we are not releasing documents to prove it either way. Then when the truth comes out the MSM will say they deserved it. Hearings will be held the CIA will say it worked but they will only stop heating the water and keep the 10K for themselves to supply weapons to cattle ranchers throughout the nation.

originally posted by: oldetimehockey4
a reply to: dfens

Clicked twice eliminate please....

edit on 26-4-2014 by MarlinGrace because: two click

a reply to: dfens

OK. Here's the link. Credit to ATS member Bassago.

Feds target instructors of polygraph-beating methods - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is a big difference between lying and ommitting. For that reasons I believe polygraph would not work. Pkus, without having all the facts or being privy to specific information, how would you know exactly what questions to ask?