Sooner or later, everyone lies. We're human. Maybe it was to blame the cat for the lamp we tipped over, or merely saying "I don't know" with a chocolate covered face to try to not get in trouble for the frosting disappearing while mom was in the bathroom. Or to avoid some other more profound consequence later in life, but basically, none is without sin. Repent!
(Seriously, do.)
Lest we forget, Trump made his money in real estate promotion. Promoting a (premium) brand involves superlatives, sometimes to excess, but generally, those involve at least some aspect of truth. The person on the other end of that expects some hyperbole; such is modern sales, whether I agree with that or not. The onus of doing due diligence, as always, resides with the buyer.
Caveat emptor has been the case at least since the Romans dominated the Mediterranean.
With that in mind, if we are to excuse hypebrole and even some minor subsequent underperformance, can we hold the Democrats to task for their promises, or, for that matter, anyone in politics? Is that really deceptive (or to turn that question around, are we so naive to expect that promises made from the stump are going to be worth the paper they weren't even written on?) Ideally, we would re-elect the ones who fulfill their promises, and primary out the ones who do not, but such would involve an attentive and engaged electorate, without compromising conflicts of interest. We don't have that.
Where it becomes less murky, however, is when one bears
False Witness against others.
Enshrined in the list of 'Thou Shalt Nots' as one of the big ten offenses against God, Himself, carved in stone, even, that is not so excusable as a little hype. (At least in the judeo-Christian ethos, Islamists have been excused from such encumbrances when promoting their faith.)
The question should be "Which candidate(s) lie about their own accomplishments (they did or they didn't) and lie about the stated goals of other, opposing candidates?".
I must note that not much Trump says about his Democratic opponents is demonstrably false, whereas their comments and attributions of his alleged policies and behaviours leave much to be desired in terms of veracity.
I'm no fan of situation ethics or relative goodness, because I believe in absolutes of right and wrong. With that consideration, I prefer to make verifiable statements when stating fact (this is opinion), and commonly cite sources for information.
With that in mind, though, consider which of the two leading candidates for POTUS has spent the most time, energy, and money saying things which just aren't so about the other, and the fog clears. The tendency for incontinent prevarication is commonly on one side, and they even buy ad space to mislead their supporters or turn others against their opponent.
But then, projection is one of their defining behaviours.
