(01-08-2023 02:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 01:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 11:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Speaking of liars, Secretary Mayorkas (the border is secure) is on ABC this morning. I am not sure which is the worse liar, him or Santos.

Close call.

Santos, of course. He has an R by his name.

And to get 93 chattering, I should say 'and he is a gay Hispanic'.

No need. OO has already pointed that out multiple times!

(01-08-2023 05:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 02:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 01:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-08-2023 11:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Speaking of liars, Secretary Mayorkas (the border is secure) is on ABC this morning. I am not sure which is the worse liar, him or Santos.

Close call.

Santos, of course. He has an R by his name.

And to get 93 chattering, I should say 'and he is a gay Hispanic'.

No need. OO has already pointed that out multiple times!

Yet you did respond. Imagine that. Lolz.

Catnip with a housecat....

I'm sorry, but referring to this as 'whataboutism' is ridiculous.

Whataboutism is by definition a deflection. An attempt to 'downplay' what one person has done by arguing that others have done it as well. NOBODY is downplaying what this guy did.....

The problem is that there are almost no rules regarding such actions. It is apparently not 'illegal' to do what he did, and hardly even actionable within the party.... but all of that has generally been supported. You're wanting to 'make up' he rules for how to handle this on the fly, and mostly putting people who have made a lifetime of walking the tightrope between lies that have consequences and lies that don't into an art form in charge of the circus. Such a rule would also be ex-post-facto, which is also unconstitutional.

Best I can tell (and nobody on here has said differently) There IS no mechanism (other than calling a special election by the people who elected him, or the next vote) for unseating someone who lied during the campaign (unless it makes him inelegible, which is not subjective, vs unqualified, which is).

So if we're now going to write laws/rules that make lying during a campaign 'actionable', it makes perfect sense NOT simply consider this guy and what he did, but any OTHER lies that would/should be actionable.

The idea that such a process requires 'perfection' or stands in the way of 'something' ignores centuries of action on every other law or rule in existence... and only serves to create a never-ending stream of new accusations and political theatre.... accomlishing nothing. It would be the very act that you guys seek... to 'make up rules' each time there is an accusation that would keep 'something' from happening.

When we decided that killing another person was illegal, we did not simply make it illegal to kill a man with a knife... because that was what just happened... meaning it was still legal to kill them with a rock or a gun... we thought of all the ways one could kill or had killed someone that we could think of and included those in the rule/law. Even those laws weren't remotely perfect and have been amended and clarified over the centuries, even down to the definition of 'killing'... and yet that was still precisely what was put in place... and what would be/should be put in place today.

So again, while we're trying to make up a law or rule to punish/unseat/whatever people who lie their way to an election victory, it makes perfecly logical sense to define the various terms... including 'lie'... Is it a lie if you believe it... and how can we prove that? Are all of these people who are not 'classically' beautiful who 'believe' they are, lying??

Is saying 'that was the best party EVER' a lie if you can't prove it? Is saying that was 'the most important act of the year' a lie if not everyone agrees? Is saying you have a degree a lie if it is quite literally a mail-in college? (I know one fairly famous case where the 'expert witness' in the subject got his PhD by mail... took no courses nor read any books). Is it a lie to present yourself as being straight if you are gay? Is it a lie to present a 'happy' marriage if you are 'on the rocks'? Is it a lie to say you are 6' of you are 5'11 1/2? Is it a lie to say you didn't have sex with someone if it was oral, and does that even matter when you are in a work position of great power over them?

As I understand it, there are plenty of things this guy said and did that all of us would agree were lies... so there really isn't a debate necessary there. I'm simply asking (as ANY discussion of a new rule would) where we draw the line on what is, and is not a lie. Which lies are we okay with and which ones will result in 'whatever' punishment we're seeking here?

People bring up Joe Biden's lies (or those of anyone else) because many of them have been similar IN NATURE to what this guy did as I understand it. Joe claimed he was at the top of his class... and he was in the bottom half as I understand it. It's less of a lie than this guy did for certain... but again, I'm not deflecting in any way from what that guy did... I'm just wanting to know how far down the scale we are going to go.

Failing to do so would be ignorant... unless we're only complaining about this guy for political reasons and not REALLY looking to change things/make things better.

It's similar to the gun question where some of the left wants to pass a bill that bans semi-automatic rifles... but the language they use bans semi-automatic pistols as well. SOme may find that to be intentional, but even if it isn't, it is not 'whataboutism' to note that fact... and it makes perfect sense that if that ISN'T really your goal, that you would be open to writing descriptions that actually FIT as opposed to claiming that we're letting 'perfection' get in the way of 'something'.

(01-09-2023 10:44 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm sorry, but referring to this as 'whataboutism' is ridiculous.

Whataboutism is by definition a deflection. An attempt to 'downplay' what one person has done by arguing that others have done it as well. NOBODY is downplaying what this guy did.....

The problem is that there are almost no rules regarding such actions. It is apparently not 'illegal' to do what he did, and hardly even actionable within the party.... but all of that has generally been supported. You're wanting to 'make up' he rules for how to handle this on the fly, and mostly putting people who have made a lifetime of walking the tightrope between lies that have consequences and lies that don't into an art form in charge of the circus. Such a rule would also be ex-post-facto, which is also unconstitutional.

Best I can tell (and nobody on here has said differently) There IS no mechanism (other than calling a special election by the people who elected him, or the next vote) for unseating someone who lied during the campaign (unless it makes him inelegible, which is not subjective, vs unqualified, which is).

So if we're now going to write laws/rules that make lying during a campaign 'actionable', it makes perfect sense NOT simply consider this guy and what he did, but any OTHER lies that would/should be actionable.

The idea that such a process requires 'perfection' or stands in the way of 'something' ignores centuries of action on every other law or rule in existence... and only serves to create a never-ending stream of new accusations and political theatre.... accomlishing nothing. It would be the very act that you guys seek... to 'make up rules' each time there is an accusation that would keep 'something' from happening.

When we decided that killing another person was illegal, we did not simply make it illegal to kill a man with a knife... because that was what just happened... meaning it was still legal to kill them with a rock or a gun... we thought of all the ways one could kill or had killed someone that we could think of and included those in the rule/law. Even those laws weren't remotely perfect and have been amended and clarified over the centuries, even down to the definition of 'killing'... and yet that was still precisely what was put in place... and what would be/should be put in place today.

So again, while we're trying to make up a law or rule to punish/unseat/whatever people who lie their way to an election victory, it makes perfecly logical sense to define the various terms... including 'lie'... Is it a lie if you believe it... and how can we prove that? Are all of these people who are not 'classically' beautiful who 'believe' they are, lying??

Is saying 'that was the best party EVER' a lie if you can't prove it? Is saying that was 'the most important act of the year' a lie if not everyone agrees? Is saying you have a degree a lie if it is quite literally a mail-in college? (I know one fairly famous case where the 'expert witness' in the subject got his PhD by mail... took no courses nor read any books). Is it a lie to present yourself as being straight if you are gay? Is it a lie to present a 'happy' marriage if you are 'on the rocks'? Is it a lie to say you are 6' of you are 5'11 1/2? Is it a lie to say you didn't have sex with someone if it was oral, and does that even matter when you are in a work position of great power over them?

As I understand it, there are plenty of things this guy said and did that all of us would agree were lies... so there really isn't a debate necessary there. I'm simply asking (as ANY discussion of a new rule would) where we draw the line on what is, and is not a lie. Which lies are we okay with and which ones will result in 'whatever' punishment we're seeking here?

People bring up Joe Biden's lies (or those of anyone else) because many of them have been similar IN NATURE to what this guy did as I understand it. Joe claimed he was at the top of his class... and he was in the bottom half as I understand it. It's less of a lie than this guy did for certain... but again, I'm not deflecting in any way from what that guy did... I'm just wanting to know how far down the scale we are going to go.

Failing to do so would be ignorant... unless we're only complaining about this guy for political reasons and not REALLY looking to change things/make things better.

It's similar to the gun question where some of the left wants to pass a bill that bans semi-automatic rifles... but the language they use bans semi-automatic pistols as well. SOme may find that to be intentional, but even if it isn't, it is not 'whataboutism' to note that fact... and it makes perfect sense that if that ISN'T really your goal, that you would be open to writing descriptions that actually FIT as opposed to claiming that we're letting 'perfection' get in the way of 'something'.

Well said. I find the next to last paragraph telling.

(01-09-2023 10:44 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm sorry, but referring to this as 'whataboutism' is ridiculous.

Whataboutism is by definition a deflection. An attempt to 'downplay' what one person has done by arguing that others have done it as well. NOBODY is downplaying what this guy did.....

The problem is that there are almost no rules regarding such actions. It is apparently not 'illegal' to do what he did, and hardly even actionable within the party.... but all of that has generally been supported. You're wanting to 'make up' he rules for how to handle this on the fly, and mostly putting people who have made a lifetime of walking the tightrope between lies that have consequences and lies that don't into an art form in charge of the circus. Such a rule would also be ex-post-facto, which is also unconstitutional.

Absolutely incorrect. I originally asked IF there were any avenues for corrective action. Nobody (Lad or I) has called for action as it seems clear that there are limited, if any, avenues.

Quote:Best I can tell (and nobody on here has said differently) There IS no mechanism (other than calling a special election by the people who elected him, or the next vote) for unseating someone who lied during the campaign (unless it makes him inelegible, which is not subjective, vs unqualified, which is).

So if we're now going to write laws/rules that make lying during a campaign 'actionable', it makes perfect sense NOT simply consider this guy and what he did, but any OTHER lies that would/should be actionable.

Again... nobody is calling for new laws/rules.

Quote:The idea that such a process requires 'perfection' or stands in the way of 'something' ignores centuries of action on every other law or rule in existence... and only serves to create a never-ending stream of new accusations and political theatre.... accomlishing nothing. It would be the very act that you guys seek... to 'make up rules' each time there is an accusation that would keep 'something' from happening.

Seriously. No.

Quote:When we decided that killing another person was illegal, we did not simply make it illegal to kill a man with a knife... because that was what just happened... meaning it was still legal to kill them with a rock or a gun... we thought of all the ways one could kill or had killed someone that we could think of and included those in the rule/law. Even those laws weren't remotely perfect and have been amended and clarified over the centuries, even down to the definition of 'killing'... and yet that was still precisely what was put in place... and what would be/should be put in place today.

So again, while we're trying to make up a law or rule to punish/unseat/whatever people who lie their way to an election victory, it makes perfecly logical sense to define the various terms... including 'lie'... Is it a lie if you believe it... and how can we prove that? Are all of these people who are not 'classically' beautiful who 'believe' they are, lying??

Ugh.

(01-09-2023 11:59 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 10:44 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm sorry, but referring to this as 'whataboutism' is ridiculous.

Whataboutism is by definition a deflection. An attempt to 'downplay' what one person has done by arguing that others have done it as well. NOBODY is downplaying what this guy did.....

The problem is that there are almost no rules regarding such actions. It is apparently not 'illegal' to do what he did, and hardly even actionable within the party.... but all of that has generally been supported. You're wanting to 'make up' he rules for how to handle this on the fly, and mostly putting people who have made a lifetime of walking the tightrope between lies that have consequences and lies that don't into an art form in charge of the circus. Such a rule would also be ex-post-facto, which is also unconstitutional.

Absolutely incorrect. I originally asked IF there were any avenues for corrective action. Nobody (Lad or I) has called for action as it seems clear that there are limited, if any, avenues.

Quote:Best I can tell (and nobody on here has said differently) There IS no mechanism (other than calling a special election by the people who elected him, or the next vote) for unseating someone who lied during the campaign (unless it makes him inelegible, which is not subjective, vs unqualified, which is).

So if we're now going to write laws/rules that make lying during a campaign 'actionable', it makes perfect sense NOT simply consider this guy and what he did, but any OTHER lies that would/should be actionable.

Again... nobody is calling for new laws/rules.

Quote:The idea that such a process requires 'perfection' or stands in the way of 'something' ignores centuries of action on every other law or rule in existence... and only serves to create a never-ending stream of new accusations and political theatre.... accomlishing nothing. It would be the very act that you guys seek... to 'make up rules' each time there is an accusation that would keep 'something' from happening.

Seriously. No.

Quote:When we decided that killing another person was illegal, we did not simply make it illegal to kill a man with a knife... because that was what just happened... meaning it was still legal to kill them with a rock or a gun... we thought of all the ways one could kill or had killed someone that we could think of and included those in the rule/law. Even those laws weren't remotely perfect and have been amended and clarified over the centuries, even down to the definition of 'killing'... and yet that was still precisely what was put in place... and what would be/should be put in place today.

So again, while we're trying to make up a law or rule to punish/unseat/whatever people who lie their way to an election victory, it makes perfecly logical sense to define the various terms... including 'lie'... Is it a lie if you believe it... and how can we prove that? Are all of these people who are not 'classically' beautiful who 'believe' they are, lying??

Ugh.

At least one person is following along.

My conversation has been centered on intentionally broad statements - holding someone accountable, repercussions, etc.

Hell, I even said this: "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. From censure, no positions in committees, those types of actions should be fair game, but would need to be bipartisan in nature."

To Lad and 93.

YOU only means 'you' if I'm quoting you.... OR if you think the description fits you.

and I didn't.... nor do I care if you personally did fit you or not since I didn't address YOU personally.

It's the collective 'you'... the ones pushing this narrative, which likely includes some/many from the right... including potentially some of us on here.

But thanks for all of your pertinent comments on the issue (none)

It does beg the question though.... WTF are you guys commenting on if you don't want to correct this issue and/or agree that there aren't any real repurcussions available (which I clearly alluded to)?

If you don't see a solution already in place and you aren't interested in creating one, then WTF are you making so many posts about it for, other than to complain about 'whataboutism' which so obviously misses the point of anyone bringing up other transgressions???


This is a perfect example of the two of you engaging in pointless political theatre while incorrectly blaming others for doing so. It seems like most of 'us' (those who post on here from the right) want to find a way to stop this from happening in the future... hence we are looking at the broader issue of 'political lies' and you two just want to ***** about it, mostly it seems because once again, it is some low level Republican doing it and not a high level democrat

(01-09-2023 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My conversation has been centered on intentionally broad statements - holding someone accountable, repercussions, etc.

Hell, I even said this: "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. From censure, no positions in committees, those types of actions should be fair game, but would need to be bipartisan in nature."

Hell, I even said this (and you quoted me)
Best I can tell (and nobody on here has said differently) There IS no mechanism (other than calling a special election by the people who elected him, or the next vote) for unseating someone who lied during the campaign (unless it makes him inelegible, which is not subjective, vs unqualified, which is).

You claim you want to hold someone accountable... yet when other suggest we look at the broader issue, you ALSO quite clearly (to me anyway) claimed it was 'whataboutism'.

You two are speaking out of both sides of your mouth, as it suits you.

93, you started off saying 'I guess he's going to get away with it'... and me and others have been working on ways to try and end it, since it will only get worse if we don't.

(01-09-2023 12:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My conversation has been centered on intentionally broad statements - holding someone accountable, repercussions, etc.

Hell, I even said this: "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. From censure, no positions in committees, those types of actions should be fair game, but would need to be bipartisan in nature."

Hell, I even said this (and you quoted me)
Best I can tell (and nobody on here has said differently) There IS no mechanism (other than calling a special election by the people who elected him, or the next vote) for unseating someone who lied during the campaign (unless it makes him inelegible, which is not subjective, vs unqualified, which is).

You claim you want to hold someone accountable... yet when other suggest we look at the broader issue, you ALSO quite clearly (to me anyway) claimed it was 'whataboutism'.

You two are speaking out of both sides of your mouth, as it suits you.

93, you started off saying 'I guess he's going to get away with it'... and me and others have been working on ways to try and end it, since it will only get worse if we don't.

Projection is a hallmark of conservatives. You hit the nail on the head with regards to speaking out of both sides of the mouth (and when I say you, I mean Hambone).

Both 93 and I have said we have 0 issue with applying whatever standard might be applied to Santos to other politicians.

The reason it has been labeled whataboutism is that responses have not addressed Santos - they immediately (IMO) switch to - well whatabout all of these other issues? IIRC, the closest that you, OO, Mersey, etc. came to providing their opinion on Santos’ lies and whether he is deserving of some sort of repercussions for them, was that it should be put up to the voters and no more.

But now we’re just arguing about what we’re arguing about, and typically, the blame from you falls only on the shoulders of others.

(01-09-2023 12:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  To Lad and 93.

YOU only means 'you' if I'm quoting you.... OR if you think the description fits you.


and I didn't.... nor do I care if you personally did fit you or not since I didn't address YOU personally.

It's the collective 'you'... the ones pushing this narrative, which likely includes some/many from the right... including potentially some of us on here.

But thanks for all of your pertinent comments on the issue (none)

LOL (Laughing out loud).

You started of your post with "I'm sorry, but referring to this as 'whataboutism' is ridiculous.". This was clearly directed to us and not "liberals in general".

You then went on to say things like "You're wanting to 'make up' he rules for how to handle this on the fly," and "It would be the very act that you guys seek... to 'make up rules' each time there is an accusation that would keep 'something' from happening.".

Pardon me if we took it as you directing this at us. How could we not have?

Quote:It does beg the question though.... WTF are you guys commenting on if you don't want to correct this issue and/or agree that there aren't any real repurcussions available (which I clearly alluded to)?

If you don't see a solution already in place and you aren't interested in creating one, then WTF are you making so many posts about it for, other than to complain about 'whataboutism' which so obviously misses the point of anyone bringing up other transgressions???

So you are getting after us for arguing just to argue. Yeah... guilty for sure. It should be pointed out, though, that THAT'S THE QUAD and yet you (not for the first time) are scolding Lad and me for this but seemingly never the other guys on this forum.

Quote:This is a perfect example of the two of you engaging in pointless political theatre while incorrectly blaming others for doing so. It seems like most of 'us' (those who post on here from the right) want to find a way to stop this from happening in the future... hence we are looking at the broader issue of 'political lies' and you two just want to ***** about it, mostly it seems because once again, it is some low level Republican doing it and not a high level democrat

This is a perfect example of you not really reading the thread carefully and then deciding to scold the non-right-wingers on this board for something that you imagine that they said rather than what they actually said. When confronted with this fact, you retreated (again, not for the first time) to the "Oh... I didn't mean you. I meant liberals in general. Get over it".

We have one fairly strong legal nudge toward whataboutism in the USA. Equal protection under the law is a basic principle underlying constitutional law. That means that we should treat comparable transgressions comparably--in other words, whataboutism has official sanction. How we treated Person A is relevant to how we should treat Person B if similarly situated.

Who was lied to?

The voters in his district,.

Who has a cause for action?

The voters in his district, and nobody else.

Who has the power to remove him from office for those lies?

The voters in his district.

Not sure what problem lad sees with this.

But the problem I see with singling out one person for any reason when there are many others with the same problem is unequal treatment based on (IMO) political associations. Not the first time this has happened, won't be the last.

Whadaboutism is a problem when it is used to excuse bad behavior - not when it is used to point out unequal treatment of said behavior based on political orientation.

Nobody has said his lying was OK because Pelosi/Biden/Clinton/Clinton/Warren/Blumenthal/hundreds of others did it too. Y'all can twist words and misquote to your heart's content, but it just hasn't happened.

(01-09-2023 01:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Projection is a hallmark of conservatives. You hit the nail on the head with regards to speaking out of both sides of the mouth (and when I say you, I mean Hambone).

Yet you can't speak truthfully and give an example of it.

Quote:Both 93 and I have said we have 0 issue with applying whatever standard might be applied to Santos to other politicians.

Never said you did. Non-sequiter. We all just said there isn't much that can be done to any of them... and that seems wrong to us so let's talk about it.

Quote:The reason it has been labeled whataboutism is that responses have not addressed Santos - they immediately (IMO) switch to - well whatabout all of these other issues? IIRC, the closest that you, OO, Mersey, etc. came to providing their opinion on Santos’ lies and whether he is deserving of some sort of repercussions for them, was that it should be put up to the voters and no more.

That just shows your preconception shining through.

The reason it doesn't speak to him is just as you and I both articulated... there doesn't seem to be much/anything that can be done to him. That ship seems to have sailed.

So yes, the conversation (for those interested in fixing the issue) DOES immediately shift to what CAN we do... and that is pretty obviously, to solve that problem moving forward.... which of course starts with defining what specific actions (at least as close as possible) we are seeking to make actionable. Santos' lies would mostly be on that list... but what others?

You know this is the next logical step because you accused some of us (me I think, though it may have been someone else, but I agreed with them) of accepting 'nothing' if we couldn't get perfection... which of course was ignorant, because 'nothing' is precisely the problem WE are seeking to solve.... so you KNOW we're trying to move forward.

Quote:But now we’re just arguing about what we’re arguing about, and typically, the blame from you falls only on the shoulders of others.

I have no idea what you're arguing about.... other than to simply point fingers. I'm talking about wanting to address the problem... and you don't seem to care about that. Yes, that's on you for not doing anything even remotely constructive in this conversation. I suppose its on me for expecting you to, but IMO, that's not an unreasonable expectation for a forum of people with above average intelligence. If you think you ARE doing something constructive, please be more clear about it.... because it obviously isn't coming through.

(01-09-2023 01:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You started of your post with "I'm sorry, but referring to this as 'whataboutism' is ridiculous.". This was clearly directed to us and not "liberals in general".

How is that clearly directed at you personally? It applies to ANYONE who considers this 'whataboutism'. If that fits you (and especially since you seem to identify with it, I agree, it does) then that's on you.... but at least I gave you the opportunity to distance yourself from such a comment.

This isn't the only place I get information from... I sometimes don't remember if I simply happened on a news story or I was directed to it by someone... or whom specifically said what, when or under what context.... especially after a few days away from this forum... but I know the topics I've read and if the suit fits then wear it.

Quote:You then went on to say things like "You're wanting to 'make up' he rules for how to handle this on the fly," and "It would be the very act that you guys seek... to 'make up rules' each time there is an accusation that would keep 'something' from happening.".

Pardon me if we took it as you directing this at us. How could we not have?

Same way I don't accept Lad's 'typical of conservatives' comment. If it doesn't apply to me, it doesn't apply to me, no matter how hard he wants it to.

But I never said it was somehow a 'bad look' or whatever on your part that you personalized it... I just noted that if I am not engaging with you and haven't in some time... and I come back in and start speaking in some generalities, I am not assigning anything to you as a fact... because I probably haven't read everything you or anyone else posted in a while... but I did read enough to see the conversation still involves 'whatabouts'.

Quote:

Quote:It does beg the question though.... WTF are you guys commenting on if you don't want to correct this issue and/or agree that there aren't any real repurcussions available (which I clearly alluded to)?

If you don't see a solution already in place and you aren't interested in creating one, then WTF are you making so many posts about it for, other than to complain about 'whataboutism' which so obviously misses the point of anyone bringing up other transgressions???

So you are getting after us for arguing just to argue. Yeah... guilty for sure. It should be pointed out, though, that THAT'S THE QUAD and yet you (not for the first time) are scolding Lad and me for this but seemingly never the other guys on this forum.

I don't see myself here in this particular situation as arguing to argue. I see myself arguing to advocate for (or at least consider) change. I think that is often the case. You and I may not agree what that should look like, but we often agree that change is needed. Gun control is a perfect example... and using generalizations... many on the left want to take guns away from law abiding citizens to keep criminals from getting them.... and many on the right want to take guns away from criminals to keep them from having them. Those opposing views may not ever lead to compromise, but it's not arguing to argue.

Arguing to argue is us arguing about whom I meant by 'you' rather than talking about what to do about politicians and at least what seems to be their increasing propensity to lie... which we don't appear to be able to do much about right now, but we all agree (on some level anyway) something should be done.

FTR, we had a similar conversation under Trump, with the same net result... Most of the right on here (Tanq a notable dissent, I might add) seeing many of Trump's lies as meaningless, though often irritating/pointless (Good seemed to revel in them) and the left (not limited to anyone on here) wanting to literally make a Federal case over every difference of opinion or hyperbolic statement, and of course the meaningful lies he told... but didn't seem at all interested in stopping MEANINGFUL lies by their side.

Quote:This is a perfect example of you not really reading the thread carefully and then deciding to scold the non-right-wingers on this board for something that you imagine that they said rather than what they actually said. When confronted with this fact, you retreated (again, not for the first time) to the "Oh... I didn't mean you. I meant liberals in general. Get over it".

Yeah.... no. Not at all.
1) please tell me what meaningful detail I've missed that in some way negates what I said about YOU.... what I need to read more 'carefully'?? This should be simple.

2) Again, I only meant you personally if you think it applies to you. If you don't think it applies to you then you can either ignore it or explain why/how your position differs from the generalization I gave... rather than do that, you play the victim

3) I never said 'liberals'... that's you once again projecting your 'victimhood', sort of a lynch pin of the left... I even said it applied to many on the right.... maybe I'm not the one not reading carefully??

4) It's not my job nor duty as a poster to be even handed.... so why should I argue with people who generally agree with me, even if I don't agree with EVERYTHING they say? Often they simply have a different perspective or goal than I do.

but I still don't see what your goal is here.

You agree that little to nothing can be done about this guy... other than as I (and perhaps you or others) suggested and for any of a number of reasons, with or without the lies, not give him any meaningful party assignments etc...

and you seem to admit that you see looking at the broader picture of politicians who lie for political gain as 'whataboutism' rather than an attempt at solving the issue... making it so that anyone else doing what this guy did (or worse... I think was Lad's contention) faces repurcussions.

I'm still trying to figure out what you guys are upset about.... since you both seem to be wearing with some pride the label I so clearly (yo you) suggested might fit you. I mean, you're not the same person so you're not arguing the same position exactly... but neither of you see the attempts to address the issue as anything but deflections... so how is assuming you just want to ***** about it 'wrong'??

(01-09-2023 03:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 01:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Projection is a hallmark of conservatives. You hit the nail on the head with regards to speaking out of both sides of the mouth (and when I say you, I mean Hambone).

Yet you can't speak truthfully and give an example of it.

Quote:Both 93 and I have said we have 0 issue with applying whatever standard might be applied to Santos to other politicians.

Never said you did. Non-sequiter. We all just said there isn't much that can be done to any of them... and that seems wrong to us so let's talk about it.

Quote:The reason it has been labeled whataboutism is that responses have not addressed Santos - they immediately (IMO) switch to - well whatabout all of these other issues? IIRC, the closest that you, OO, Mersey, etc. came to providing their opinion on Santos’ lies and whether he is deserving of some sort of repercussions for them, was that it should be put up to the voters and no more.

That just shows your preconception shining through.

The reason it doesn't speak to him is just as you and I both articulated... there doesn't seem to be much/anything that can be done to him. That ship seems to have sailed.

So yes, the conversation (for those interested in fixing the issue) DOES immediately shift to what CAN we do... and that is pretty obviously, to solve that problem moving forward.... which of course starts with defining what specific actions (at least as close as possible) we are seeking to make actionable. Santos' lies would mostly be on that list... but what others?

You know this is the next logical step because you accused some of us (me I think, though it may have been someone else, but I agreed with them) of accepting 'nothing' if we couldn't get perfection... which of course was ignorant, because 'nothing' is precisely the problem WE are seeking to solve.... so you KNOW we're trying to move forward.

Quote:But now we’re just arguing about what we’re arguing about, and typically, the blame from you falls only on the shoulders of others.

I have no idea what you're arguing about.... other than to simply point fingers. I'm talking about wanting to address the problem... and you don't seem to care about that. Yes, that's on you for not doing anything even remotely constructive in this conversation. I suppose its on me for expecting you to, but IMO, that's not an unreasonable expectation for a forum of people with above average intelligence. If you think you ARE doing something constructive, please be more clear about it.... because it obviously isn't coming through.

(01-09-2023 01:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You started of your post with "I'm sorry, but referring to this as 'whataboutism' is ridiculous.". This was clearly directed to us and not "liberals in general".

How is that clearly directed at you personally? It applies to ANYONE who considers this 'whataboutism'. If that fits you (and especially since you seem to identify with it, I agree, it does) then that's on you.... but at least I gave you the opportunity to distance yourself from such a comment.

This isn't the only place I get information from... I sometimes don't remember if I simply happened on a news story or I was directed to it by someone... or whom specifically said what, when or under what context.... especially after a few days away from this forum... but I know the topics I've read and if the suit fits then wear it.

Quote:You then went on to say things like "You're wanting to 'make up' he rules for how to handle this on the fly," and "It would be the very act that you guys seek... to 'make up rules' each time there is an accusation that would keep 'something' from happening.".

Pardon me if we took it as you directing this at us. How could we not have?

Same way I don't accept Lad's 'typical of conservatives' comment. If it doesn't apply to me, it doesn't apply to me, no matter how hard he wants it to.

But I never said it was somehow a 'bad look' or whatever on your part that you personalized it... I just noted that if I am not engaging with you and haven't in some time... and I come back in and start speaking in some generalities, I am not assigning anything to you as a fact... because I probably haven't read everything you or anyone else posted in a while... but I did read enough to see the conversation still involves 'whatabouts'.

Quote:

Quote:It does beg the question though.... WTF are you guys commenting on if you don't want to correct this issue and/or agree that there aren't any real repurcussions available (which I clearly alluded to)?

If you don't see a solution already in place and you aren't interested in creating one, then WTF are you making so many posts about it for, other than to complain about 'whataboutism' which so obviously misses the point of anyone bringing up other transgressions???

So you are getting after us for arguing just to argue. Yeah... guilty for sure. It should be pointed out, though, that THAT'S THE QUAD and yet you (not for the first time) are scolding Lad and me for this but seemingly never the other guys on this forum.

I don't see myself here in this particular situation as arguing to argue. I see myself arguing to advocate for (or at least consider) change. I think that is often the case. You and I may not agree what that should look like, but we often agree that change is needed. Gun control is a perfect example... and using generalizations... many on the left want to take guns away from law abiding citizens to keep criminals from getting them.... and many on the right want to take guns away from criminals to keep them from having them. Those opposing views may not ever lead to compromise, but it's not arguing to argue.

Arguing to argue is us arguing about whom I meant by 'you' rather than talking about what to do about politicians and at least what seems to be their increasing propensity to lie... which we don't appear to be able to do much about right now, but we all agree (on some level anyway) something should be done.

FTR, we had a similar conversation under Trump, with the same net result... Most of the right on here (Tanq a notable dissent, I might add) seeing many of Trump's lies as meaningless, though often irritating/pointless (Good seemed to revel in them) and the left (not limited to anyone on here) wanting to literally make a Federal case over every difference of opinion or hyperbolic statement, and of course the meaningful lies he told... but didn't seem at all interested in stopping MEANINGFUL lies by their side.

Quote:This is a perfect example of you not really reading the thread carefully and then deciding to scold the non-right-wingers on this board for something that you imagine that they said rather than what they actually said. When confronted with this fact, you retreated (again, not for the first time) to the "Oh... I didn't mean you. I meant liberals in general. Get over it".

Yeah.... no. Not at all.
1) please tell me what meaningful detail I've missed that in some way negates what I said about YOU.... what I need to read more 'carefully'?? This should be simple.

The part where you obviously (to everybody apparently except to you) were directing your comments in your whataboutism post to Lad and me. The part that somehow we were advocating for on-the-fly rules designed to punish Santos.

I am open to the possibility that you were not, in fact, directing them to us however the way that you wrote it made this incredibly unclear.

(01-09-2023 04:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 03:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 01:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Projection is a hallmark of conservatives. You hit the nail on the head with regards to speaking out of both sides of the mouth (and when I say you, I mean Hambone).

Yet you can't speak truthfully and give an example of it.

Quote:Both 93 and I have said we have 0 issue with applying whatever standard might be applied to Santos to other politicians.

Never said you did. Non-sequiter. We all just said there isn't much that can be done to any of them... and that seems wrong to us so let's talk about it.

Quote:The reason it has been labeled whataboutism is that responses have not addressed Santos - they immediately (IMO) switch to - well whatabout all of these other issues? IIRC, the closest that you, OO, Mersey, etc. came to providing their opinion on Santos’ lies and whether he is deserving of some sort of repercussions for them, was that it should be put up to the voters and no more.

That just shows your preconception shining through.

The reason it doesn't speak to him is just as you and I both articulated... there doesn't seem to be much/anything that can be done to him. That ship seems to have sailed.

So yes, the conversation (for those interested in fixing the issue) DOES immediately shift to what CAN we do... and that is pretty obviously, to solve that problem moving forward.... which of course starts with defining what specific actions (at least as close as possible) we are seeking to make actionable. Santos' lies would mostly be on that list... but what others?

You know this is the next logical step because you accused some of us (me I think, though it may have been someone else, but I agreed with them) of accepting 'nothing' if we couldn't get perfection... which of course was ignorant, because 'nothing' is precisely the problem WE are seeking to solve.... so you KNOW we're trying to move forward.

Quote:But now we’re just arguing about what we’re arguing about, and typically, the blame from you falls only on the shoulders of others.

I have no idea what you're arguing about.... other than to simply point fingers. I'm talking about wanting to address the problem... and you don't seem to care about that. Yes, that's on you for not doing anything even remotely constructive in this conversation. I suppose its on me for expecting you to, but IMO, that's not an unreasonable expectation for a forum of people with above average intelligence. If you think you ARE doing something constructive, please be more clear about it.... because it obviously isn't coming through.

(01-09-2023 01:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You started of your post with "I'm sorry, but referring to this as 'whataboutism' is ridiculous.". This was clearly directed to us and not "liberals in general".

How is that clearly directed at you personally? It applies to ANYONE who considers this 'whataboutism'. If that fits you (and especially since you seem to identify with it, I agree, it does) then that's on you.... but at least I gave you the opportunity to distance yourself from such a comment.

This isn't the only place I get information from... I sometimes don't remember if I simply happened on a news story or I was directed to it by someone... or whom specifically said what, when or under what context.... especially after a few days away from this forum... but I know the topics I've read and if the suit fits then wear it.

Quote:You then went on to say things like "You're wanting to 'make up' he rules for how to handle this on the fly," and "It would be the very act that you guys seek... to 'make up rules' each time there is an accusation that would keep 'something' from happening.".

Pardon me if we took it as you directing this at us. How could we not have?

Same way I don't accept Lad's 'typical of conservatives' comment. If it doesn't apply to me, it doesn't apply to me, no matter how hard he wants it to.

But I never said it was somehow a 'bad look' or whatever on your part that you personalized it... I just noted that if I am not engaging with you and haven't in some time... and I come back in and start speaking in some generalities, I am not assigning anything to you as a fact... because I probably haven't read everything you or anyone else posted in a while... but I did read enough to see the conversation still involves 'whatabouts'.

Quote:

Quote:It does beg the question though.... WTF are you guys commenting on if you don't want to correct this issue and/or agree that there aren't any real repurcussions available (which I clearly alluded to)?

If you don't see a solution already in place and you aren't interested in creating one, then WTF are you making so many posts about it for, other than to complain about 'whataboutism' which so obviously misses the point of anyone bringing up other transgressions???

So you are getting after us for arguing just to argue. Yeah... guilty for sure. It should be pointed out, though, that THAT'S THE QUAD and yet you (not for the first time) are scolding Lad and me for this but seemingly never the other guys on this forum.

I don't see myself here in this particular situation as arguing to argue. I see myself arguing to advocate for (or at least consider) change. I think that is often the case. You and I may not agree what that should look like, but we often agree that change is needed. Gun control is a perfect example... and using generalizations... many on the left want to take guns away from law abiding citizens to keep criminals from getting them.... and many on the right want to take guns away from criminals to keep them from having them. Those opposing views may not ever lead to compromise, but it's not arguing to argue.

Arguing to argue is us arguing about whom I meant by 'you' rather than talking about what to do about politicians and at least what seems to be their increasing propensity to lie... which we don't appear to be able to do much about right now, but we all agree (on some level anyway) something should be done.

FTR, we had a similar conversation under Trump, with the same net result... Most of the right on here (Tanq a notable dissent, I might add) seeing many of Trump's lies as meaningless, though often irritating/pointless (Good seemed to revel in them) and the left (not limited to anyone on here) wanting to literally make a Federal case over every difference of opinion or hyperbolic statement, and of course the meaningful lies he told... but didn't seem at all interested in stopping MEANINGFUL lies by their side.

Quote:This is a perfect example of you not really reading the thread carefully and then deciding to scold the non-right-wingers on this board for something that you imagine that they said rather than what they actually said. When confronted with this fact, you retreated (again, not for the first time) to the "Oh... I didn't mean you. I meant liberals in general. Get over it".

Yeah.... no. Not at all.
1) please tell me what meaningful detail I've missed that in some way negates what I said about YOU.... what I need to read more 'carefully'?? This should be simple.

The part where you obviously (to everybody apparently except to you) were directing your comments in your whataboutism post to Lad and me. The part that somehow we were advocating for on-the-fly rules designed to punish Santos.

I am open to the possibility that you were not, in fact, directing them to us however the way that you wrote it made this incredibly unclear.

Preach

(01-09-2023 04:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  The part where you obviously (to everybody apparently except to you) were directing your comments in your whataboutism post to Lad and me. The part that somehow we were advocating for on-the-fly rules designed to punish Santos.

What does any of this have to do with me not reading more carefully??

You accused me of not reading something you wrote carefully enough... as if I had, I wouldn't have said what I said...

So stilll.... though more clear since we're here.... what did I miss that I then scolded you, but not right wingers for?

Quote:I am open to the possibility that you were not, in fact, directing them to us however the way that you wrote it made this incredibly unclear.

Again, since you've mostly 'owned' it, I don't really know what difference it makes... but unclear to you or not, this is what I often do when I've been away from a conversation and come back to it... and see similar themes to when i left, but may have missed some nuances or clarifications since then. Basically I see it as a way for someone interested in an actual conversation to summarize what might be a pages long discussion with someone else that lead to a clarification. Seems to me that 'the two sides' who may have been going on for dozens if not hundreds of posts since my last (or maybe three, IDK) are still talking about 'whatabout'.

You've not mentioned any nuances or clarifications that I may have missed...

I get that you undersood me to mean you personally... and of course, I wouldn't have posted it HERE if I hadn't seem some familiar themes to the ones I'm describing... that would make no sense... but since I can't possibly (or really, won't) go back and read hundreds of posts, I often summarize what I see as the two sides and let each (if they care to) correct or supplement or distance themselves from my understanding. Of course I don't really have to get a lot of correction from anyone who generally agrees with me... nor do I usually significantly misrepresent them... though certainly sometimes I will, and they sometimes correct me... or distance themselves a bit from my generalization.

Summary... and I've said all this...
- Doesn't seem to be much that can be done to punish Santos.
- That seems to be an encouragement for even more lies if someone can be THIS bold with impunity.... and that for me and others (maybe you, I suspect you) is a big problem.
- Santos' lies, while clear and disturbing in their brashness, are arguably not as egregious/troubling as some others in office already have done... in terms of scope and impact on others... but we don't want to open a can of worms for 'investigating' everyone.... and give that power to the fox in the hen house
- so let's start by seeing if we can make a list of and a priorty deck/ranking of lies as much as we can... I don't remember who suggested that... FBO maybe?? It wasn't a 'usual suspect' as I recall and see if we can craft some sort of solution or at least try and devise a way of addressing it fairly. This makes sense to me and some (including it seems, especially since you've owned it, you and lad) think this is 'whatabout'?

You're saying I missed some comment that would distance you from 'the collective you', but you don't seem to want to tell me what that comment is. I would absolutely accept it if you showed it to me (and of course if it made any logical sense)... and my use of 'you' would therefore not include you personally

BTW, leaving it (vetting of candidates) to the press is fraught with potential for abuse, and obviously still doesn't work if the candidate is far enough off the grid somehow. I mean hell... this is a New York State Congressman. I get that upstate isn't remotely NYC, but it's hardly Wyoming.

(01-09-2023 04:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 04:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  The part where you obviously (to everybody apparently except to you) were directing your comments in your whataboutism post to Lad and me. The part that somehow we were advocating for on-the-fly rules designed to punish Santos.

What does any of this have to do with me not reading more carefully??

You accused me of not reading something you wrote carefully enough... as if I had, I wouldn't have said what I said...

So stilll.... though more clear since we're here.... what did I miss that I then scolded you, but not right wingers for?

"This is a perfect example of the two of you engaging in pointless political theatre while incorrectly blaming others for doing so."

Quote:

Quote:I am open to the possibility that you were not, in fact, directing them to us however the way that you wrote it made this incredibly unclear.

Again, since you've mostly 'owned' it, I don't really know what difference it makes... but unclear to you or not, this is what I often do when I've been away from a conversation and come back to it... and see similar themes to when i left, but may have missed some nuances or clarifications since then. Basically I see it as a way for someone interested in an actual conversation to summarize what might be a pages long discussion with someone else that lead to a clarification. Seems to me that 'the two sides' who may have been going on for dozens if not hundreds of posts since my last (or maybe three, IDK) are still talking about 'whatabout'.

You've not mentioned any nuances or clarifications that I may have missed...

I get that you undersood me to mean you personally... and of course, I wouldn't have posted it HERE if I hadn't seem some familiar themes to the ones I'm describing... that would make no sense... but since I can't possibly (or really, won't) go back and read hundreds of posts, I often summarize what I see as the two sides and let each (if they care to) correct or supplement or distance themselves from my understanding. Of course I don't really have to get a lot of correction from anyone who generally agrees with me... nor do I usually significantly misrepresent them... though certainly sometimes I will, and they sometimes correct me... or distance themselves a bit from my generalization.

Summary... and I've said all this...
- Doesn't seem to be much that can be done to punish Santos.
- That seems to be an encouragement for even more lies if someone can be THIS bold with impunity.... and that for me and others (maybe you, I suspect you) is a big problem.
- Santos' lies, while clear and disturbing in their brashness, are arguably not as egregious/troubling as some others in office already have done... in terms of scope and impact on others... but we don't want to open a can of worms for 'investigating' everyone.... and give that power to the fox in the hen house
- so let's start by seeing if we can make a list of and a priorty deck/ranking of lies as much as we can... I don't remember who suggested that... FBO maybe?? It wasn't a 'usual suspect' as I recall and see if we can craft some sort of solution or at least try and devise a way of addressing it fairly. This makes sense to me and some (including it seems, you and lad) think this is 'whatabout'.

leaving it to the press is fraught with potential for abuse, and obviously still doesn't work if the candidate is far enough off the grid somehow.

I don't disagree with the bold.

(01-09-2023 04:59 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 04:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 04:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  The part where you obviously (to everybody apparently except to you) were directing your comments in your whataboutism post to Lad and me. The part that somehow we were advocating for on-the-fly rules designed to punish Santos.

What does any of this have to do with me not reading more carefully??

You accused me of not reading something you wrote carefully enough... as if I had, I wouldn't have said what I said...

So stilll.... though more clear since we're here.... what did I miss that I then scolded you, but not right wingers for?

"This is a perfect example of the two of you engaging in pointless political theatre while incorrectly blaming others for doing so."

Maybe I'm just dense... but I still don't understand how this relates.

Accusing someone of engaging in 'whataboutism' when they have a clearly understandable (to me) and articulated (at LEAST by me) reason for the comparison is IMO, accusing someone of engaging in pointless political theatre. That is what I'm saying you two (because you both seemed to own calling it whataboutism from my post about 'you') have done.... so IMO, you have incorrectly accused others of engaging in political theatre....

and doing this instead of actually talking about potential solutions or ways to address this going forward is again, IMO, engaging in political theatre,

You may disagree with my assessment, but that is precisely what I meant... and you're not responding in any way that I can see to that.... either telling me how 'trying to fix it' is theatre or how 'calling it whataboutism' isn't.

More on this below....

Quote:

Quote:Summary... and I've said all this...
- Doesn't seem to be much that can be done to punish Santos.
- That seems to be an encouragement for even more lies if someone can be THIS bold with impunity.... and that for me and others (maybe you, I suspect you) is a big problem.
- Santos' lies, while clear and disturbing in their brashness, are arguably not as egregious/troubling as some others in office already have done... in terms of scope and impact on others... but we don't want to open a can of worms for 'investigating' everyone.... and give that power to the fox in the hen house
- so let's start by seeing if we can make a list of and a priorty deck/ranking of lies as much as we can... I don't remember who suggested that... FBO maybe?? It wasn't a 'usual suspect' as I recall and see if we can craft some sort of solution or at least try and devise a way of addressing it fairly. This makes sense to me and some (including it seems, you and lad) think this is 'whatabout'.

leaving it to the press is fraught with potential for abuse, and obviously still doesn't work if the candidate is far enough off the grid somehow.

I don't disagree with the bold.

Ok... so if we are all on the same page up to this point, what do you want to do about it? It's a paraphrase, but the next line after the bold seems to me to be a logical step. Decide somehow what is wheat and what is chaff.

You've instead called it 'whatabout'.

So what is your suggestion?

a) accept the inability to do anything about it and 'dismiss' those who want to try anyway??
b) list what Santos did and make THAT 'the bar'?
c) something else?

(01-09-2023 05:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So what is your suggestion?

I don't think you will get an answer to this question.

Very hard question to answer if you are trying to be fair and nonpartisan.

My suggestion, once again, is to let the voters in his district take care of it. They were the ones wronged.

(01-09-2023 05:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 04:59 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 04:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 04:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  The part where you obviously (to everybody apparently except to you) were directing your comments in your whataboutism post to Lad and me. The part that somehow we were advocating for on-the-fly rules designed to punish Santos.

What does any of this have to do with me not reading more carefully??

You accused me of not reading something you wrote carefully enough... as if I had, I wouldn't have said what I said...

So stilll.... though more clear since we're here.... what did I miss that I then scolded you, but not right wingers for?

"This is a perfect example of the two of you engaging in pointless political theatre while incorrectly blaming others for doing so."

Maybe I'm just dense... but I still don't understand how this relates.

Accusing someone of engaging in 'whataboutism' when they have a clearly understandable (to me) and articulated (at LEAST by me) reason for the comparison is IMO, accusing someone of engaging in pointless political theatre. That is what I'm saying you two (because you both seemed to own calling it whataboutism from my post about 'you') have done.... so IMO, you have incorrectly accused others of engaging in political theatre....

and doing this instead of actually talking about potential solutions or ways to address this going forward is again, IMO, engaging in political theatre,

You may disagree with my assessment, but that is precisely what I meant... and you're not responding in any way that I can see to that.... either telling me how 'trying to fix it' is theatre or how 'calling it whataboutism' isn't.

More on this below....

Quote:

Quote:Summary... and I've said all this...
- Doesn't seem to be much that can be done to punish Santos.
- That seems to be an encouragement for even more lies if someone can be THIS bold with impunity.... and that for me and others (maybe you, I suspect you) is a big problem.
- Santos' lies, while clear and disturbing in their brashness, are arguably not as egregious/troubling as some others in office already have done... in terms of scope and impact on others... but we don't want to open a can of worms for 'investigating' everyone.... and give that power to the fox in the hen house
- so let's start by seeing if we can make a list of and a priorty deck/ranking of lies as much as we can... I don't remember who suggested that... FBO maybe?? It wasn't a 'usual suspect' as I recall and see if we can craft some sort of solution or at least try and devise a way of addressing it fairly. This makes sense to me and some (including it seems, you and lad) think this is 'whatabout'.

leaving it to the press is fraught with potential for abuse, and obviously still doesn't work if the candidate is far enough off the grid somehow.

I don't disagree with the bold.

Ok... so if we are all on the same page up to this point, what do you want to do about it? It's a paraphrase, but the next line after the bold seems to me to be a logical step. Decide somehow what is wheat and what is chaff.

You've instead called it 'whatabout'.

So what is your suggestion?

a) accept the inability to do anything about it and 'dismiss' those who want to try anyway??
b) list what Santos did and make THAT 'the bar'?
c) something else?

These positions are important enough that it would be nice if there was some type of nonpartisan (is this possible) private committee that does basic vetting of the submitted background and financial information for candidates for Congress. I'm not sure how this would work... I haven't thought about it too much. But apparently we can't rely on the candidate's own party nor the opposition party nor the media to perform an adequate background check. Finding a nonpartisan arbiter of "the truth" would be the issue. You then get to that fine line of what is simply putting some gloss on one's CV versus what is lying that is significant enough to be a worthy of disqualifying a candidate.