I've been giving a little thought to something, in the past couple of weeks.  I think about it maybe 1 in every 5 times a Liberal President wanna-be gets caught in a lie, or at least, the lies I hear about.  Just so were clear, this does not include when they get caught being hypocrites.  Just outright liars.

  So, in the past couple of weeks, I've asked myself the question about three times, and I don't really have an answer, but I'd like to get some other perspectives.

  Let's say there are two people from which you must choose one to be the President of the country.  This is a person who will be responsible for making very important decisions.

  Now, let's say that both people are equally deceptive, but the things about which they deceive may be different.

  All things considered, would you rather choose the person who rarely gets caught in their "lies" or the person who frequently gets caught in them?

  As I see it, there are certain factors to consider.  The thing that stands out the most, to me, is that one candidate is just too stupid to be a good deceiver.  If you're an incompetent liar, and you don't even realize it, then I don't really want you in a position of important making-making.

  On the other hand, if you are an excellent deceiver, then you might succeed at doing something that I don't want.  Of course, it could also mean that it might improve their chances of doing something that I do want, that requires opposition, be it a party or enemy country, not knowing something.

  I don't have a fundamental problem with a President deceiving.  It is effectively a military position, and anyone in the military will agree that knowledge is power.  And a lot of people are too stupid to always make intelligent, wise decisions with volatile information.

  I'm inclined to err on the side of competence.  Any other insights or perspectives?  Anything I'm overlooking?