(01-06-2023 11:09 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 10:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This thread has become a black hole of whattaboutism. Peak Quad.

TIL there are ZERO expectations of integrity from our elected officials. It is not even worth commenting on malfeasance because it is, after all, to be expected.

No it hasn't.
I suggested looking at everyone.
But let's prioritize the investigations.
Let's hold everyone accountable.
You picked the last liar in (or the last liar identified).

The reason why expectations are so low, imho, is that no one is being held accountable.

I'm ready to run out anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, are you?

(Sorry about my response times, I type really slow...)

"This has not been full of whataboutisms" says the person who followed that up by saying essentially "what about them???"

Whataboutism: the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse

Santos is an easy situation to respond to - this guy clearly lied egregiously and in a way that clearly misrepresented significant portions of his background that were likely critical in getting him elected for the first time. It's a bad situation deserving of criticism.

But all the responses have literally been focused on the lies of others, which you and OO are deeming worse...

(01-06-2023 11:00 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think they are both terrible. It's funny, though, that you guys were up-in-arms during the Trump administration about Orange Man Bad but you seem to be unable to have any discussion about literally anything without turning it into a rebuke of Biden. Do you see the irony here?

not really. You're asking about a mechanism for running off a politician who has lied... and you guys spent the last 4 years trying to do that... and had you been successful, one would think that would also apply to Biden... but I don't see you guys up in arms about him.... and he's been saying them for decades. Remember videos of him saying he'd put his IQ up against anyone? That he finished at the top of his class etc etc??

If you're going to ask about mechanisms, then certainly conversations about others who have done similar and how they were treated are germane... and Biden is the CURRENT 'top dog' whose exploits most people are familiar with. I'm sure many others have lied, but there is a lot more attention paid to those at the top who do so. If lying doesn't keep you from becoming President in 2020 then it shouldn't keep you from being elected to Congress in 2022.

That sentiment seems to fit with what some are saying.

(01-06-2023 11:09 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  No it hasn't.
I suggested looking at everyone.
But let's prioritize the investigations.
Let's hold everyone accountable.
You picked the last liar in (or the last liar identified).

The reason why expectations are so low, imho, is that no one is being held accountable.

I'm ready to run out anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, are you?

(Sorry about my response times, I type really slow...)

This.

(01-06-2023 11:28 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 11:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think the lies that he told were completely over-the-top and they should preclude him from holding office. I would feel the same way if he was a Democrat.

My original post was intended to help me understand if there are any avenues to "run him out" or if we simply need to give him his term and then let the voters in his district decide thereafter. I didn't know how it worked. I still don't.

I don't think it works at all. That's what I was trying to convey, but obviously very poorly.

My Father would sometimes tell me he was voting for the 'other' party. His rationale was, "It's time to get a different set of crooks in office."

and this to both of you...
but the problem is (and has been alluded to by others)... where do you draw the line?

Which is worse? Lying about your educational qualifications, or lying about how hard you worked to pass a bill that people voted for you in hopes that you'd succeed? Lying about your family background, or lying about whether or not you had sex with someone who 'reported' to you? Which is worse? Lying about your position on abortion, or lying about whether you knew about the break in or not? Again, only bringing some of those things up because they're fairly well known allegations...

If you want all politicians to be truthful that's fine... and I'd like that too... but its AMAZING to see some of the gymnastics that some people will go through to accept what other consider to be bald-faced lies... so whom is to set the standards?

I think it pretty clear that his election is under a shadow and as a result, I suspect that the party will he hesitant to give him much power with the thought being that he may well not survive the next election so why invest in him? That in and of itself may be the only punishment available to anyone.

(01-06-2023 11:52 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 11:00 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think they are both terrible. It's funny, though, that you guys were up-in-arms during the Trump administration about Orange Man Bad but you seem to be unable to have any discussion about literally anything without turning it into a rebuke of Biden. Do you see the irony here?

not really. You're asking about a mechanism for running off a politician who has lied... and you guys spent the last 4 years trying to do that... and had you been successful, one would think that would also apply to Biden... but I don't see you guys up in arms about him.... and he's been saying them for decades. Remember videos of him saying he'd put his IQ up against anyone? That he finished at the top of his class etc etc??

OMB. Old man bad.

Quote:If you're going to ask about mechanisms, then certainly conversations about others who have done similar and how they were treated are germane... and Biden is the CURRENT 'top dog' whose exploits most people are familiar with. I'm sure many others have lied, but there is a lot more attention paid to those at the top who do so. If lying doesn't keep you from becoming President in 2020 then it shouldn't keep you from being elected to Congress in 2022.

That sentiment seems to fit with what some are saying.

(01-06-2023 11:09 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  No it hasn't.
I suggested looking at everyone.
But let's prioritize the investigations.
Let's hold everyone accountable.
You picked the last liar in (or the last liar identified).

The reason why expectations are so low, imho, is that no one is being held accountable.

I'm ready to run out anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, are you?

(Sorry about my response times, I type really slow...)

This is whataboutism.

FIFY.

(01-06-2023 11:28 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 11:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think the lies that he told were completely over-the-top and they should preclude him from holding office. I would feel the same way if he was a Democrat.

My original post was intended to help me understand if there are any avenues to "run him out" or if we simply need to give him his term and then let the voters in his district decide thereafter. I didn't know how it worked. I still don't.

I don't think it works at all. That's what I was trying to convey, but obviously very poorly.

My Father would sometimes tell me he was voting for the 'other' party. His rationale was, "It's time to get a different set of crooks in office."

and this to both of you...
but the problem is (and has been alluded to by others)... where do you draw the line?

Which is worse? Lying about your educational qualifications, or lying about how hard you worked to pass a bill that people voted for you in hopes that you'd succeed? Lying about your family background, or lying about whether or not you had sex with someone who 'reported' to you? Which is worse? Lying about your position on abortion, or lying about whether you knew about the break in or not? Again, only bringing some of those things up because they're fairly well known allegations...

If you want all politicians to be truthful that's fine... and I'd like that too... but its AMAZING to see some of the gymnastics that some people will go through to accept what other consider to be bald-faced lies... so whom is to set the standards?

I think it pretty clear that his election is under a shadow and as a result, I suspect that the party will he hesitant to give him much power with the thought being that he may well not survive the next election so why invest in him? That in and of itself may be the only punishment available to anyone.
[/quote]

You are probably right about this.

(01-06-2023 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 11:09 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 10:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This thread has become a black hole of whattaboutism. Peak Quad.

TIL there are ZERO expectations of integrity from our elected officials. It is not even worth commenting on malfeasance because it is, after all, to be expected.

No it hasn't.
I suggested looking at everyone.
But let's prioritize the investigations.
Let's hold everyone accountable.
You picked the last liar in (or the last liar identified).

The reason why expectations are so low, imho, is that no one is being held accountable.

I'm ready to run out anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, are you?

(Sorry about my response times, I type really slow...)

"This has not been full of whataboutisms" says the person who followed that up by saying essentially "what about them???"

Whataboutism: the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse

Santos is an easy situation to respond to - this guy clearly lied egregiously and in a way that clearly misrepresented significant portions of his background that were likely critical in getting him elected for the first time. It's a bad situation deserving of criticism.

But all the responses have literally been focused on the lies of others, which you and OO are deeming worse...

Sorry but your logic is tragically flawed.

I didn't deem everyone else's lies similar or worse.
I said list everyone with their respective lies and indiscretions, etc.
Investigate everyone, but prioritize the list. Don't cherry pick.
Hold everyone accountable.

I said:
"I'm ready to run out anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, are you?"

So I'm ready to run George Santos out of town along with a fair number of sitting politicians, are you?

(01-06-2023 12:14 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 11:09 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 10:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This thread has become a black hole of whattaboutism. Peak Quad.

TIL there are ZERO expectations of integrity from our elected officials. It is not even worth commenting on malfeasance because it is, after all, to be expected.

No it hasn't.
I suggested looking at everyone.
But let's prioritize the investigations.
Let's hold everyone accountable.
You picked the last liar in (or the last liar identified).

The reason why expectations are so low, imho, is that no one is being held accountable.

I'm ready to run out anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, are you?

(Sorry about my response times, I type really slow...)

"This has not been full of whataboutisms" says the person who followed that up by saying essentially "what about them???"

Whataboutism: the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse

Santos is an easy situation to respond to - this guy clearly lied egregiously and in a way that clearly misrepresented significant portions of his background that were likely critical in getting him elected for the first time. It's a bad situation deserving of criticism.

But all the responses have literally been focused on the lies of others, which you and OO are deeming worse...

Sorry but your logic is tragically flawed.

I didn't deem everyone else's lies similar or worse.
I said list everyone with their respective lies and indiscretions, etc.
Investigate everyone, but prioritize the list. Don't cherry pick.
Hold everyone accountable.

I said:
"I'm ready to run out anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, are you?"

So I'm ready to run George Santos out of town along with a fair number of sitting politicians, are you?

Absolutely - it would be good to hold those in power to a higher standard (rather than a lower one). There's always a straw that breaks the camel's back. Perhaps Santos is the one that starts moving the legislative body to punishing (in some manner) their fellow members?

I guess I misunderstood the point of your first post when you said "I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were heavily medicated when you typed this given the 'truth economics' applied by past, current, and future members of Congress, the Executive, et. al., et. seq."

So you were never considering the lies of "past, current, and future members" when responding to the Santos inquiry.

(01-06-2023 12:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 12:14 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 11:09 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 10:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This thread has become a black hole of whattaboutism. Peak Quad.

TIL there are ZERO expectations of integrity from our elected officials. It is not even worth commenting on malfeasance because it is, after all, to be expected.

No it hasn't.
I suggested looking at everyone.
But let's prioritize the investigations.
Let's hold everyone accountable.
You picked the last liar in (or the last liar identified).

The reason why expectations are so low, imho, is that no one is being held accountable.

I'm ready to run out anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, are you?

(Sorry about my response times, I type really slow...)

"This has not been full of whataboutisms" says the person who followed that up by saying essentially "what about them???"

Whataboutism: the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse

Santos is an easy situation to respond to - this guy clearly lied egregiously and in a way that clearly misrepresented significant portions of his background that were likely critical in getting him elected for the first time. It's a bad situation deserving of criticism.

But all the responses have literally been focused on the lies of others, which you and OO are deeming worse...

Sorry but your logic is tragically flawed.

I didn't deem everyone else's lies similar or worse.
I said list everyone with their respective lies and indiscretions, etc.
Investigate everyone, but prioritize the list. Don't cherry pick.
Hold everyone accountable.

I said:
"I'm ready to run out anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, are you?"

So I'm ready to run George Santos out of town along with a fair number of sitting politicians, are you?

Absolutely - it would be good to hold those in power to a higher standard (rather than a lower one). There's always a straw that breaks the camel's back. Perhaps Santos is the one that starts moving the legislative body to punishing (in some manner) their fellow members?

I guess I misunderstood the point of your first post when you said "I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were heavily medicated when you typed this given the 'truth economics' applied by past, current, and future members of Congress, the Executive, et. al., et. seq."

So you were never considering the lies of "past, current, and future members" when responding to the Santos inquiry.

Well first off I'm not sure what a higher or lower standard of the truth or integrity would look like.

My initial response was to 93 as he seemed enraged (probably the wrong word, sorry 93) over the (current) transgressions of George Santos. I think that 93 and I are OK after our exchange, but you've decided to enter the fray after the battle is over and the combatants (hopefully) reconciled.

I think all the lies of current and future members require scrutiny first. The lies, etc., of former members should not be overlooked or discounted.

I'm not sure what can be done about former members, but giving them a free pass seems patently wrong.

Love to chat, but I'm off for a meal with my son. AFK.

(01-06-2023 10:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This thread has become a black hole of whattaboutism. Peak Quad.

TIL there are ZERO expectations of integrity from our elected officials. It is not even worth commenting on malfeasance because it is, after all, to be expected.

I do think that expectation was on a downward trend before Trump and then took a major wallop with his election. The brazenness with which he lied was truly unprecedented.

I think one of the difficult parts with this issue is that the magnitude of a lie is subjective. And that’s even if we can agree on what a lie is - as we’ve seen for the past decade plus, we’re apt to argue over whether a statement is a lie or not. So given that inherent subjectivity, formally punishing someone for lying is a tough ask. But personally, I’d rather we attempt to hold people accountable who lie about their qualifications to get elected.

I don’t know the exact tools at hand, but (if it is feasible) I think tossing someone from Congress would be a huge issue and even Santos probably doesn’t live up to the lies there. Form censure, no positions in committees, those types of actions should be fair game, but would need to be bipartisan in nature.

(01-06-2023 01:00 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 12:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 12:14 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 11:09 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  No it hasn't.
I suggested looking at everyone.
But let's prioritize the investigations.
Let's hold everyone accountable.
You picked the last liar in (or the last liar identified).

The reason why expectations are so low, imho, is that no one is being held accountable.

I'm ready to run out anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, are you?

(Sorry about my response times, I type really slow...)

"This has not been full of whataboutisms" says the person who followed that up by saying essentially "what about them???"

Whataboutism: the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse

Santos is an easy situation to respond to - this guy clearly lied egregiously and in a way that clearly misrepresented significant portions of his background that were likely critical in getting him elected for the first time. It's a bad situation deserving of criticism.

But all the responses have literally been focused on the lies of others, which you and OO are deeming worse...

Sorry but your logic is tragically flawed.

I didn't deem everyone else's lies similar or worse.
I said list everyone with their respective lies and indiscretions, etc.
Investigate everyone, but prioritize the list. Don't cherry pick.
Hold everyone accountable.

I said:
"I'm ready to run out anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, are you?"

So I'm ready to run George Santos out of town along with a fair number of sitting politicians, are you?

Absolutely - it would be good to hold those in power to a higher standard (rather than a lower one). There's always a straw that breaks the camel's back. Perhaps Santos is the one that starts moving the legislative body to punishing (in some manner) their fellow members?

I guess I misunderstood the point of your first post when you said "I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were heavily medicated when you typed this given the 'truth economics' applied by past, current, and future members of Congress, the Executive, et. al., et. seq."

So you were never considering the lies of "past, current, and future members" when responding to the Santos inquiry.

Well first off I'm not sure what a higher or lower standard of the truth or integrity would look like.

My initial response was to 93 as he seemed enraged (probably the wrong word, sorry 93) over the (current) transgressions of George Santos. I think that 93 and I are OK after our exchange, but you've decided to enter the fray after the battle is over and the combatants (hopefully) reconciled.

I think all the lies of current and future members require scrutiny first. The lies, etc., of former members should not be overlooked or discounted.

I'm not sure what can be done about former members, but giving them a free pass seems patently wrong.

Love to chat, but I'm off for a meal with my son. AFK.

To me, a higher or lower standard would be something like this (assuming a generic person is making the statements below).

“Bob lied on his resume to get that job. He should be fired because he misrepresented his experience!”

“Bob lied on his resume to get elected. But he’s just a politician, they all lie and I think John’s lie about what was in the proposal he supported was worse.”

One response conveys a clear disapproval and higher standard for honesty than the other.

(01-06-2023 12:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  This is whataboutism.

FIFY.

[/quote]
[/quote]

(01-06-2023 12:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Absolutely - it would be good to hold those in power to a higher standard (rather than a lower one). There's always a straw that breaks the camel's back. Perhaps Santos is the one that starts moving the legislative body to punishing (in some manner) their fellow members?

Responding to you both. This misses what I think is his point though... and absolutely misses mine.

It would be very easy for those in power, many of whom rose to that place through similar tactics... to throw this newbie into the flames and pretend that they've done just as you suggest... and that they are now 'heroes' rather than villians. Similarly and as I suggested, where do you draw the line? Who decides?

Unless you address those issue up front, they will never be addressed... and instead we will simply continue to protect those who got here first and still lie while 'punishing' those who simply take it to the next level. That's how this 'rules for thee' started... and we are just continuing it.

How can you decide whom to punish and whom not to unless you talk about what others have done so as to set that bar? Exactly what are we punishing here (other than the sheer hubris of the acts)? If we decide that saying you graduated from somewhere when you didn't receive your diploma, does that mean that we can/should go after everyone who did that? Is it a point system? How many points is that?

Other than that, we're merely attacking this one individual and doing nothing about the bigger problem that 'created' him. That's okay on SOME levels, but it only leads to more of these one-off attacks... almost always by 'the other side' and NEVER to an actual bipartisan solution.

the biggest thing that people like this who do it with such hubris (including Trump) is to set the table for us to end it... but ENDING it has to include some way of addressing how we got here in the first place. You can't impose ex-post-facto laws, but you can certainly vote people out of office. Hence my suggestion in another thread that we agree that this has gone too far... let the voters decide how important it is... expose those others (to their voters) who did it but got away with it because it was 1970 as opposed to 2020, but then enact rules that keep it from happening again.

Quote:

(01-06-2023 01:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 12:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  This is whataboutism.

FIFY.

(01-06-2023 12:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Absolutely - it would be good to hold those in power to a higher standard (rather than a lower one). There's always a straw that breaks the camel's back. Perhaps Santos is the one that starts moving the legislative body to punishing (in some manner) their fellow members?

Responding to you both. This misses what I think is his point though... and absolutely misses mine.

It would be very easy for those in power, many of whom rose to that place through similar tactics... to throw this newbie into the flames and pretend that they've done just as you suggest... and that they are now 'heroes' rather than villians. Similarly and as I suggested, where do you draw the line? Who decides?

Unless you address those issue up front, they will never be addressed... and instead we will simply continue to protect those who got here first and still lie while 'punishing' those who simply take it to the next level. That's how this 'rules for thee' started... and we are just continuing it.

How can you decide whom to punish and whom not to unless you talk about what others have done so as to set that bar? Exactly what are we punishing here (other than the sheer hubris of the acts)? If we decide that saying you graduated from somewhere when you didn't receive your diploma, does that mean that we can/should go after everyone who did that? Is it a point system? How many points is that?

Other than that, we're merely attacking this one individual and doing nothing about the bigger problem that 'created' him. That's okay on SOME levels, but it only leads to more of these one-off attacks... almost always by 'the other side' and NEVER to an actual bipartisan solution.

I'll note that you just chastised me for seemingly telling you what you did or didn't understand and here you are assuming I'm missing your point...

IMO, what I posted doesn't miss the point you're making about the difficulties of punishing lying and the potential for insulating those who have benefited from lax "oversight before" (I actually had a second posted pretty much about this).

To be explicit, my opinion is that the point you're making keeps any progress from being made because it's letting perfection get in the way of good. So I say "NUTS" to that point (which is why I didn't explicitly address it). That's not to say your point isn't valid (I believe I understand exactly what you're saying), but that we have to start somewhere and I'm a big proponent of some progress is better than no progress. And every time there is an egregious example of impropriety (in this instance lying) that we let off the hook because it's potentially too difficult or cumbersome to deal with the other instances of impropriety, then it's reinforcing that the behavior is appropriate.

I'd rather deal with the worst case outcome of trying to nip this in the bud, and failing (the idea of attacking one individual you talk about).

In a perfect world we'd have all the i's dotted and t's crossed, but this isn't a perfect world to me.

(01-06-2023 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 10:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This thread has become a black hole of whattaboutism. Peak Quad.

TIL there are ZERO expectations of integrity from our elected officials. It is not even worth commenting on malfeasance because it is, after all, to be expected.

I do think that expectation was on a downward trend before Trump and then took a major wallop with his election. The brazenness with which he lied was truly unprecedented.

I think one of the difficult parts with this issue is that the magnitude of a lie is subjective. And that’s even if we can agree on what a lie is - as we’ve seen for the past decade plus, we’re apt to argue over whether a statement is a lie or not. So given that inherent subjectivity, formally punishing someone for lying is a tough ask. But personally, I’d rather we attempt to hold people accountable who lie about their qualifications to get elected.

I don’t know the exact tools at hand, but (if it is feasible) I think tossing someone from Congress would be a huge issue and even Santos probably doesn’t live up to the lies there. Form censure, no positions in committees, those types of actions should be fair game, but would need to be bipartisan in nature.

Get me to a church... Lad and I agree on something

(01-06-2023 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'll note that you just chastised me for seemingly telling you what you did or didn't understand and here you are assuming I'm missing your point...

Well THAT was a quick trip to church.

Wrong again. This is so ******* circuitous....

If you got that point then say so... and comment on it. Because you didn't comment on it (at the time of my posting) I don't believe you understood it correctly. If I then come back and ARGUE with you about it (like you do with me all the time) THEN you are telling me what I think, over my clear corrections.

Quote:IMO, what I posted doesn't miss the point you're making about the difficulties of punishing lying and the potential for insulating those who have benefited from lax "oversight before" (I actually had a second posted pretty much about this).

Yes, your second post made it clear... hence my comment after reading it. Nothing in your first post that I responded to IMO addressed any of that. It is not unreasonable to believe that someone missed your point if they don't comment on it in their reply to you. That isn't what I was 'chastising' you for. Now, if after your second post I continued to argue that you were missing my point, THAT would be worth rebuke, and that is what you routinely do.

Most often, I just don't care about your point and have my own to make... and vice versa. Sometimes those things conflict, other times it makes no difference.

Quote:To be explicit, my opinion is that the point you're making keeps any progress from being made because it's letting perfection get in the way of good. So I say "NUTS" to that point (which is why I didn't explicitly address it). That's not to say your point isn't valid (I believe I understand exactly what you're saying), but that we have to start somewhere and I'm a big proponent of some progress is better than no progress. And every time there is an egregious example of impropriety (in this instance lying) that we let off the hook because it's potentially too difficult or cumbersome to deal with the other instances of impropriety, then it's reinforcing that the behavior is appropriate.

I'd rather deal with the worst case outcome of trying to nip this in the bud, and failing (the idea of attacking one individual you talk about).

In a perfect world we'd have all the i's dotted and t's crossed, but this isn't a perfect world to me.

Perfect example of a conflict... I couldn't disagree more.

Implicit in your comment is that he has no repurcussions. That's not what I said. I'm just not going to allow a dog and pony show from congress wasting time energy and resources. He lied... Don't give him meaningful assignments... and then let voters decide... because that is the way the system is set up.

What you've described isn't progress in my mind.... because it doesn't address the systemic issues that have lead to such incredible corruption and 'trade for pay' that encourages people to lie in the first place... AND.. as you somewhat agree with I think... just leads to even more of what Trump engaged in and that is to 'argue about what we're arguing about'... what his supporters called 4d chess when he would (in their minds) intentionally throw some obvious lie out there to occupy the rabid left... meanwhile, they were blind to his real purpose.

In my mind, progress would be to say... This stops TODAY.

From a practical standpoint, the only difference between your proposal and mine is that you want to punish someone for doing something that current laws don't really seem to address... which I see as fraut with potential for abuse, and I want to write new laws to make what he did actionable going forward.

(01-06-2023 02:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 10:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This thread has become a black hole of whattaboutism. Peak Quad.

TIL there are ZERO expectations of integrity from our elected officials. It is not even worth commenting on malfeasance because it is, after all, to be expected.

I do think that expectation was on a downward trend before Trump and then took a major wallop with his election. The brazenness with which he lied was truly unprecedented.

I think one of the difficult parts with this issue is that the magnitude of a lie is subjective. And that’s even if we can agree on what a lie is - as we’ve seen for the past decade plus, we’re apt to argue over whether a statement is a lie or not. So given that inherent subjectivity, formally punishing someone for lying is a tough ask. But personally, I’d rather we attempt to hold people accountable who lie about their qualifications to get elected.

I don’t know the exact tools at hand, but (if it is feasible) I think tossing someone from Congress would be a huge issue and even Santos probably doesn’t live up to the lies there. Form censure, no positions in committees, those types of actions should be fair game, but would need to be bipartisan in nature.

Get me to a church... Lad and I agree on something

(01-06-2023 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'll note that you just chastised me for seemingly telling you what you did or didn't understand and here you are assuming I'm missing your point...

Well THAT was a quick trip to church.

Wrong again. This is so ******* circuitous....

If you got that point then say so... and comment on it. Because you didn't comment on it (at the time of my posting) I don't believe you understood it correctly. If I then come back and ARGUE with you about it (like you do with me all the time) THEN you are telling me what I think, over my clear corrections.

Quote:IMO, what I posted doesn't miss the point you're making about the difficulties of punishing lying and the potential for insulating those who have benefited from lax "oversight before" (I actually had a second posted pretty much about this).

Yes, your second post made it clear... hence my comment after reading it. Nothing in your first post that I responded to IMO addressed any of that. It is not unreasonable to believe that someone missed your point if they don't comment on it in their reply to you. That isn't what I was 'chastising' you for. Now, if after your second post I continued to argue that you were missing my point, THAT would be worth rebuke, and that is what you routinely do.

Most often, I just don't care about your point and have my own to make... and vice versa. Sometimes those things conflict, other times it makes no difference.

Holy heck. Ham, I didn't respond to one of your posts. You responded to a back and forth between me and Mersey (and 93 by extension). So to the bolded, I didn't reply to you! That is why I took issue with me arguing that I missed your point.

So you basically came in and told me that I was missing a point of yours when I hadn't even had a back and forth.

I'd argue that your last sentence is why we often get crossed - and why I say this forum is a difficult place to converse. It's not easy to tell when someone is responding directly to a post.

Quote:

Quote:To be explicit, my opinion is that the point you're making keeps any progress from being made because it's letting perfection get in the way of good. So I say "NUTS" to that point (which is why I didn't explicitly address it). That's not to say your point isn't valid (I believe I understand exactly what you're saying), but that we have to start somewhere and I'm a big proponent of some progress is better than no progress. And every time there is an egregious example of impropriety (in this instance lying) that we let off the hook because it's potentially too difficult or cumbersome to deal with the other instances of impropriety, then it's reinforcing that the behavior is appropriate.

I'd rather deal with the worst case outcome of trying to nip this in the bud, and failing (the idea of attacking one individual you talk about).

In a perfect world we'd have all the i's dotted and t's crossed, but this isn't a perfect world to me.

Perfect example of a conflict... I couldn't disagree more.

Implicit in your comment is that he has no repurcussions. That's not what I said. I'm just not going to allow a dog and pony show from congress wasting time energy and resources. He lied... Don't give him meaningful assignments... and then let voters decide... because that is the way the system is set up.

What you've described isn't progress in my mind.... because it doesn't address the systemic issues that have lead to such incredible corruption and 'trade for pay' that encourages people to lie in the first place... AND.. as you somewhat agree with I think... just leads to even more of what Trump engaged in and that is to 'argue about what we're arguing about'... what his supporters called 4d chess when he would (in their minds) intentionally throw some obvious lie out there to occupy the rabid left... meanwhile, they were blind to his real purpose.

In my mind, progress would be to say... This stops TODAY.

From a practical standpoint, the only difference between your proposal and mine is that you want to punish someone for doing something that current laws don't really seem to address... which I see as fraut with potential for abuse, and I want to write new laws to make what he did actionable going forward.

I'm confused now - previously you were talking about the issues of punishing the shiny new object, but you just now say (in the bolded) that you're fine with punishing the shiny new object. IMO, not giving the shiny new object meaningful assignments is a form of punishment.

And per your last sentence, I don't think there is anything we can legally do with this (as in, pass new laws). Did you think I was advocating for a legal recourse in a court of law? I think any punishment would have to based on rules set in the House/Senate or the willingness of Representatives/Senators to more strictly self-police.

(01-06-2023 02:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 10:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This thread has become a black hole of whattaboutism. Peak Quad.

TIL there are ZERO expectations of integrity from our elected officials. It is not even worth commenting on malfeasance because it is, after all, to be expected.

I do think that expectation was on a downward trend before Trump and then took a major wallop with his election. The brazenness with which he lied was truly unprecedented.

I think one of the difficult parts with this issue is that the magnitude of a lie is subjective. And that’s even if we can agree on what a lie is - as we’ve seen for the past decade plus, we’re apt to argue over whether a statement is a lie or not. So given that inherent subjectivity, formally punishing someone for lying is a tough ask. But personally, I’d rather we attempt to hold people accountable who lie about their qualifications to get elected.

I don’t know the exact tools at hand, but (if it is feasible) I think tossing someone from Congress would be a huge issue and even Santos probably doesn’t live up to the lies there. Form censure, no positions in committees, those types of actions should be fair game, but would need to be bipartisan in nature.

Get me to a church... Lad and I agree on something

(01-06-2023 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'll note that you just chastised me for seemingly telling you what you did or didn't understand and here you are assuming I'm missing your point...

Well THAT was a quick trip to church.

Wrong again. This is so ******* circuitous....

If you got that point then say so... and comment on it. Because you didn't comment on it (at the time of my posting) I don't believe you understood it correctly. If I then come back and ARGUE with you about it (like you do with me all the time) THEN you are telling me what I think, over my clear corrections.

Quote:IMO, what I posted doesn't miss the point you're making about the difficulties of punishing lying and the potential for insulating those who have benefited from lax "oversight before" (I actually had a second posted pretty much about this).

Yes, your second post made it clear... hence my comment after reading it. Nothing in your first post that I responded to IMO addressed any of that. It is not unreasonable to believe that someone missed your point if they don't comment on it in their reply to you. That isn't what I was 'chastising' you for. Now, if after your second post I continued to argue that you were missing my point, THAT would be worth rebuke, and that is what you routinely do.

Most often, I just don't care about your point and have my own to make... and vice versa. Sometimes those things conflict, other times it makes no difference.

Quote:To be explicit, my opinion is that the point you're making keeps any progress from being made because it's letting perfection get in the way of good. So I say "NUTS" to that point (which is why I didn't explicitly address it). That's not to say your point isn't valid (I believe I understand exactly what you're saying), but that we have to start somewhere and I'm a big proponent of some progress is better than no progress. And every time there is an egregious example of impropriety (in this instance lying) that we let off the hook because it's potentially too difficult or cumbersome to deal with the other instances of impropriety, then it's reinforcing that the behavior is appropriate.

I'd rather deal with the worst case outcome of trying to nip this in the bud, and failing (the idea of attacking one individual you talk about).

In a perfect world we'd have all the i's dotted and t's crossed, but this isn't a perfect world to me.

Perfect example of a conflict... I couldn't disagree more.

Implicit in your comment is that he has no repurcussions. That's not what I said. I'm just not going to allow a dog and pony show from congress wasting time energy and resources. He lied... Don't give him meaningful assignments... and then let voters decide... because that is the way the system is set up.

What you've described isn't progress in my mind.... because it doesn't address the systemic issues that have lead to such incredible corruption and 'trade for pay' that encourages people to lie in the first place... AND.. as you somewhat agree with I think... just leads to even more of what Trump engaged in and that is to 'argue about what we're arguing about'... what his supporters called 4d chess when he would (in their minds) intentionally throw some obvious lie out there to occupy the rabid left... meanwhile, they were blind to his real purpose.

In my mind, progress would be to say... This stops TODAY.

From a practical standpoint, the only difference between your proposal and mine is that you want to punish someone for doing something that current laws don't really seem to address... which I see as fraut with potential for abuse, and I want to write new laws to make what he did actionable going forward.

Why withhold meaningful assignments? There are other liars in Congress. Why are you singling out Santos? Who makes the decision as to if his lies deserve the punishment of withholding meaningful assignments? Who draws the line here?

It seems that you need to go all the way here and treat him as any other member of Congress and ignore all his lies or you guys are speaking out of both sides of your mouths IMO.

(01-06-2023 02:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 02:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 10:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This thread has become a black hole of whattaboutism. Peak Quad.

TIL there are ZERO expectations of integrity from our elected officials. It is not even worth commenting on malfeasance because it is, after all, to be expected.

I do think that expectation was on a downward trend before Trump and then took a major wallop with his election. The brazenness with which he lied was truly unprecedented.

I think one of the difficult parts with this issue is that the magnitude of a lie is subjective. And that’s even if we can agree on what a lie is - as we’ve seen for the past decade plus, we’re apt to argue over whether a statement is a lie or not. So given that inherent subjectivity, formally punishing someone for lying is a tough ask. But personally, I’d rather we attempt to hold people accountable who lie about their qualifications to get elected.

I don’t know the exact tools at hand, but (if it is feasible) I think tossing someone from Congress would be a huge issue and even Santos probably doesn’t live up to the lies there. Form censure, no positions in committees, those types of actions should be fair game, but would need to be bipartisan in nature.

Get me to a church... Lad and I agree on something

(01-06-2023 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'll note that you just chastised me for seemingly telling you what you did or didn't understand and here you are assuming I'm missing your point...

Well THAT was a quick trip to church.

Wrong again. This is so ******* circuitous....

If you got that point then say so... and comment on it. Because you didn't comment on it (at the time of my posting) I don't believe you understood it correctly. If I then come back and ARGUE with you about it (like you do with me all the time) THEN you are telling me what I think, over my clear corrections.

Quote:IMO, what I posted doesn't miss the point you're making about the difficulties of punishing lying and the potential for insulating those who have benefited from lax "oversight before" (I actually had a second posted pretty much about this).

Yes, your second post made it clear... hence my comment after reading it. Nothing in your first post that I responded to IMO addressed any of that. It is not unreasonable to believe that someone missed your point if they don't comment on it in their reply to you. That isn't what I was 'chastising' you for. Now, if after your second post I continued to argue that you were missing my point, THAT would be worth rebuke, and that is what you routinely do.

Most often, I just don't care about your point and have my own to make... and vice versa. Sometimes those things conflict, other times it makes no difference.

Quote:To be explicit, my opinion is that the point you're making keeps any progress from being made because it's letting perfection get in the way of good. So I say "NUTS" to that point (which is why I didn't explicitly address it). That's not to say your point isn't valid (I believe I understand exactly what you're saying), but that we have to start somewhere and I'm a big proponent of some progress is better than no progress. And every time there is an egregious example of impropriety (in this instance lying) that we let off the hook because it's potentially too difficult or cumbersome to deal with the other instances of impropriety, then it's reinforcing that the behavior is appropriate.

I'd rather deal with the worst case outcome of trying to nip this in the bud, and failing (the idea of attacking one individual you talk about).

In a perfect world we'd have all the i's dotted and t's crossed, but this isn't a perfect world to me.

Perfect example of a conflict... I couldn't disagree more.

Implicit in your comment is that he has no repurcussions. That's not what I said. I'm just not going to allow a dog and pony show from congress wasting time energy and resources. He lied... Don't give him meaningful assignments... and then let voters decide... because that is the way the system is set up.

What you've described isn't progress in my mind.... because it doesn't address the systemic issues that have lead to such incredible corruption and 'trade for pay' that encourages people to lie in the first place... AND.. as you somewhat agree with I think... just leads to even more of what Trump engaged in and that is to 'argue about what we're arguing about'... what his supporters called 4d chess when he would (in their minds) intentionally throw some obvious lie out there to occupy the rabid left... meanwhile, they were blind to his real purpose.

In my mind, progress would be to say... This stops TODAY.

From a practical standpoint, the only difference between your proposal and mine is that you want to punish someone for doing something that current laws don't really seem to address... which I see as fraut with potential for abuse, and I want to write new laws to make what he did actionable going forward.

Why withhold meaningful assignments? There are other liars in Congress. Why are you singling out Santos? Who makes the decision as to if his lies deserve the punishment of withholding meaningful assignments? Who draws the line here?

It seems that you need to go all the way here and treat him as any other member of Congress and ignore all his lies or you guys are speaking out of both sides of your mouths IMO.

Oh no, I forgot to switch accounts!

(01-06-2023 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 11:09 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 10:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This thread has become a black hole of whattaboutism. Peak Quad.

TIL there are ZERO expectations of integrity from our elected officials. It is not even worth commenting on malfeasance because it is, after all, to be expected.

No it hasn't.
I suggested looking at everyone.
But let's prioritize the investigations.
Let's hold everyone accountable.
You picked the last liar in (or the last liar identified).

The reason why expectations are so low, imho, is that no one is being held accountable.

I'm ready to run out anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, are you?

(Sorry about my response times, I type really slow...)

"This has not been full of whataboutisms" says the person who followed that up by saying essentially "what about them???"

Whataboutism: the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse

Santos is an easy situation to respond to - this guy clearly lied egregiously and in a way that clearly misrepresented significant portions of his background that were likely critical in getting him elected for the first time. It's a bad situation deserving of criticism.

But all the responses have literally been focused on the lies of others, which you and OO are deeming worse...

I didn't say that. I guess this is just another case of you not reading what is said.

I am saying that he is just another pol who has lied, is lying, and will lie. The comparison is being made by you and others that he is so much worse that he needs to be singled out, while others who have lied, are lyingh, and will lie should be left in peace to enjoy their perks and build up their pensions. You are the one saying A is better/worse than B. I am the one saying A and B are both liars, on what basis do you take action against B and not A?

Which skunk needs to be removed because he is smelly, and which ones are OK to leave in place?

(01-06-2023 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 02:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 02:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 10:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This thread has become a black hole of whattaboutism. Peak Quad.

TIL there are ZERO expectations of integrity from our elected officials. It is not even worth commenting on malfeasance because it is, after all, to be expected.

I do think that expectation was on a downward trend before Trump and then took a major wallop with his election. The brazenness with which he lied was truly unprecedented.

I think one of the difficult parts with this issue is that the magnitude of a lie is subjective. And that’s even if we can agree on what a lie is - as we’ve seen for the past decade plus, we’re apt to argue over whether a statement is a lie or not. So given that inherent subjectivity, formally punishing someone for lying is a tough ask. But personally, I’d rather we attempt to hold people accountable who lie about their qualifications to get elected.

I don’t know the exact tools at hand, but (if it is feasible) I think tossing someone from Congress would be a huge issue and even Santos probably doesn’t live up to the lies there. Form censure, no positions in committees, those types of actions should be fair game, but would need to be bipartisan in nature.

Get me to a church... Lad and I agree on something

(01-06-2023 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'll note that you just chastised me for seemingly telling you what you did or didn't understand and here you are assuming I'm missing your point...

Well THAT was a quick trip to church.

Wrong again. This is so ******* circuitous....

If you got that point then say so... and comment on it. Because you didn't comment on it (at the time of my posting) I don't believe you understood it correctly. If I then come back and ARGUE with you about it (like you do with me all the time) THEN you are telling me what I think, over my clear corrections.

Quote:IMO, what I posted doesn't miss the point you're making about the difficulties of punishing lying and the potential for insulating those who have benefited from lax "oversight before" (I actually had a second posted pretty much about this).

Yes, your second post made it clear... hence my comment after reading it. Nothing in your first post that I responded to IMO addressed any of that. It is not unreasonable to believe that someone missed your point if they don't comment on it in their reply to you. That isn't what I was 'chastising' you for. Now, if after your second post I continued to argue that you were missing my point, THAT would be worth rebuke, and that is what you routinely do.

Most often, I just don't care about your point and have my own to make... and vice versa. Sometimes those things conflict, other times it makes no difference.

Quote:To be explicit, my opinion is that the point you're making keeps any progress from being made because it's letting perfection get in the way of good. So I say "NUTS" to that point (which is why I didn't explicitly address it). That's not to say your point isn't valid (I believe I understand exactly what you're saying), but that we have to start somewhere and I'm a big proponent of some progress is better than no progress. And every time there is an egregious example of impropriety (in this instance lying) that we let off the hook because it's potentially too difficult or cumbersome to deal with the other instances of impropriety, then it's reinforcing that the behavior is appropriate.

I'd rather deal with the worst case outcome of trying to nip this in the bud, and failing (the idea of attacking one individual you talk about).

In a perfect world we'd have all the i's dotted and t's crossed, but this isn't a perfect world to me.

Perfect example of a conflict... I couldn't disagree more.

Implicit in your comment is that he has no repurcussions. That's not what I said. I'm just not going to allow a dog and pony show from congress wasting time energy and resources. He lied... Don't give him meaningful assignments... and then let voters decide... because that is the way the system is set up.

What you've described isn't progress in my mind.... because it doesn't address the systemic issues that have lead to such incredible corruption and 'trade for pay' that encourages people to lie in the first place... AND.. as you somewhat agree with I think... just leads to even more of what Trump engaged in and that is to 'argue about what we're arguing about'... what his supporters called 4d chess when he would (in their minds) intentionally throw some obvious lie out there to occupy the rabid left... meanwhile, they were blind to his real purpose.

In my mind, progress would be to say... This stops TODAY.

From a practical standpoint, the only difference between your proposal and mine is that you want to punish someone for doing something that current laws don't really seem to address... which I see as fraut with potential for abuse, and I want to write new laws to make what he did actionable going forward.

Why withhold meaningful assignments? There are other liars in Congress. Why are you singling out Santos? Who makes the decision as to if his lies deserve the punishment of withholding meaningful assignments? Who draws the line here?

It seems that you need to go all the way here and treat him as any other member of Congress and ignore all his lies or you guys are speaking out of both sides of your mouths IMO.

Oh no, I forgot to switch accounts!

Damnit!

(01-06-2023 02:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 11:09 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 10:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This thread has become a black hole of whattaboutism. Peak Quad.

TIL there are ZERO expectations of integrity from our elected officials. It is not even worth commenting on malfeasance because it is, after all, to be expected.

No it hasn't.
I suggested looking at everyone.
But let's prioritize the investigations.
Let's hold everyone accountable.
You picked the last liar in (or the last liar identified).

The reason why expectations are so low, imho, is that no one is being held accountable.

I'm ready to run out anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, are you?

(Sorry about my response times, I type really slow...)

"This has not been full of whataboutisms" says the person who followed that up by saying essentially "what about them???"

Whataboutism: the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse

Santos is an easy situation to respond to - this guy clearly lied egregiously and in a way that clearly misrepresented significant portions of his background that were likely critical in getting him elected for the first time. It's a bad situation deserving of criticism.

But all the responses have literally been focused on the lies of others, which you and OO are deeming worse...

I didn't say that. I guess this is just another case of you not reading what is said.

I am saying that he is just another pol who has lied, is lying, and will lie. The comparison is being made by you and others that he is so much worse that he needs to be singled out, while others who have lied, are lyingh, and will lie should be left in peace to enjoy their perks and build up their pensions. You are the one saying A is better/worse than B. I am the one saying A and B are both liars, on what basis do you take action against B and not A?

Which skunk needs to be removed because he is smelly, and which ones are OK to leave in place?

I think it would be good to clarify two things here:

- To the bolded: all other Congressmen have lied to the same extent, such that Santos is no different?
- Let's assume that I agree that A and B are equal, is that rationale for not doling out punishment in your mind? If so, am I safe to assume it's because the potential unequal application of "force" is too worrisome to you?

(01-06-2023 03:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 02:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I didn't say that. I guess this is just another case of you not reading what is said.
I am saying that he is just another pol who has lied, is lying, and will lie. The comparison is being made by you and others that he is so much worse that he needs to be singled out, while others who have lied, are lying, and will lie should be left in peace to enjoy their perks and build up their pensions. You are the one saying A is better/worse than B. I am the one saying A and B are both liars, on what basis do you take action against B and not A?
Which skunk needs to be removed because he is smelly, and which ones are OK to leave in place?

I think it would be good to clarify two things here:
- To the bolded: all other Congressmen have lied to the same extent, such that Santos is no different?
- Let's assume that I agree that A and B are equal, is that rationale for not doling out punishment in your mind? If so, am I safe to assume it's because the potential unequal application of "force" is too worrisome to you?

Speaking of smelly skunks:

Santos should be kicked out for lying.
Blumenthal should be kicked out for lying.
Warren should be kicked out for lying.
It's too late to kick Ted Kennedy out, but there should be a resolution condemning him for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.

Omitting any of those is a denial of equal protection under the law.

(01-06-2023 03:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 02:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 11:09 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 10:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This thread has become a black hole of whattaboutism. Peak Quad.

TIL there are ZERO expectations of integrity from our elected officials. It is not even worth commenting on malfeasance because it is, after all, to be expected.

No it hasn't.
I suggested looking at everyone.
But let's prioritize the investigations.
Let's hold everyone accountable.
You picked the last liar in (or the last liar identified).

The reason why expectations are so low, imho, is that no one is being held accountable.

I'm ready to run out anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, are you?

(Sorry about my response times, I type really slow...)

"This has not been full of whataboutisms" says the person who followed that up by saying essentially "what about them???"

Whataboutism: the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse

Santos is an easy situation to respond to - this guy clearly lied egregiously and in a way that clearly misrepresented significant portions of his background that were likely critical in getting him elected for the first time. It's a bad situation deserving of criticism.

But all the responses have literally been focused on the lies of others, which you and OO are deeming worse...

I didn't say that. I guess this is just another case of you not reading what is said.

I am saying that he is just another pol who has lied, is lying, and will lie. The comparison is being made by you and others that he is so much worse that he needs to be singled out, while others who have lied, are lyingh, and will lie should be left in peace to enjoy their perks and build up their pensions. You are the one saying A is better/worse than B. I am the one saying A and B are both liars, on what basis do you take action against B and not A?

Which skunk needs to be removed because he is smelly, and which ones are OK to leave in place?

I think it would be good to clarify two things here:

- To the bolded: all other Congressmen have lied to the same extent, such that Santos is no different?
- Let's assume that I agree that A and B are equal, is that rationale for not doling out punishment in your mind? If so, am I safe to assume it's because the potential unequal application of "force" is too worrisome to you?

Equal? Where did I say that?

Both members of a class, yes. Equal, no. A horse is a horse, of course, of course, but not all horses are equal.

Is Santos a worse person than _____________? or a better one than _____________? Could be both. Or neither.

The thing is, we handle politicians who have fooled us by (choose one)

a. Executing them
B. Re-electing them
c. un-electing them
d. ignoring them
e. Making them President
f. Erecting statues to them
g. Pulling down their statues.
h. Sending them to prison
i. Sending them to Washington.
j. Nominating them for a Nobel Peace Prize

...and so forth. What is the criteria for deciding which liar to promote and which to demote?

Here is a lie I have heard recently: The border is secure. What shall we do about the liar?

(01-06-2023 04:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 03:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 02:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 11:09 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  No it hasn't.
I suggested looking at everyone.
But let's prioritize the investigations.
Let's hold everyone accountable.
You picked the last liar in (or the last liar identified).

The reason why expectations are so low, imho, is that no one is being held accountable.

I'm ready to run out anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, are you?

(Sorry about my response times, I type really slow...)

"This has not been full of whataboutisms" says the person who followed that up by saying essentially "what about them???"

Whataboutism: the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse

Santos is an easy situation to respond to - this guy clearly lied egregiously and in a way that clearly misrepresented significant portions of his background that were likely critical in getting him elected for the first time. It's a bad situation deserving of criticism.

But all the responses have literally been focused on the lies of others, which you and OO are deeming worse...

I didn't say that. I guess this is just another case of you not reading what is said.

I am saying that he is just another pol who has lied, is lying, and will lie. The comparison is being made by you and others that he is so much worse that he needs to be singled out, while others who have lied, are lyingh, and will lie should be left in peace to enjoy their perks and build up their pensions. You are the one saying A is better/worse than B. I am the one saying A and B are both liars, on what basis do you take action against B and not A?

Which skunk needs to be removed because he is smelly, and which ones are OK to leave in place?

I think it would be good to clarify two things here:

- To the bolded: all other Congressmen have lied to the same extent, such that Santos is no different?
- Let's assume that I agree that A and B are equal, is that rationale for not doling out punishment in your mind? If so, am I safe to assume it's because the potential unequal application of "force" is too worrisome to you?

Equal? Where did I say that?

Both members of a class, yes. Equal, no. A horse is a horse, of course, of course, but not all horses are equal.

Is Santos a worse person than _____________? or a better one than _____________? Could be both. Or neither.

The thing is, we handle politicians who have fooled us by (choose one)

a. Executing them
B. Re-electing them
c. un-electing them
d. ignoring them
e. Making them President
f. Erecting statues to them
g. Pulling down their statues.
h. Sending them to prison
i. Sending them to Washington.
j. Nominating them for a Nobel Peace Prize

...and so forth. What is the criteria for deciding which liar to promote and which to demote?

Here is a lie I have heard recently: The border is secure. What shall we do about the liar?

Thanks for the clarification. As I said, the bolded comments is why I wasn't sure of your thoughts - they were ambiguous to me as to whether you viewed his lies as equal to others.

Based on this response, I would presume that you're cynical and therefore don't see the purpose of there being any formal repercussions from the legislative body. Is that correct? That's my takeaway when you ask about how to handle other lies - it's too subjective as to what is a serious or egregious lie, so formal action isn't appropriate.