American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

Except, when this happens in private industry you know what happens?

you get fired.

Government has no mechanism for that after the election results are validated.

Again what's the problem here? this cuts both ways. If a democrat got elected into office through lying about their bona fides would some posters still be equally reticent about passing legislation?

somehow I doubt it.

I don’t know about that.

This is lying on a truly epic scale.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

Except, when this happens in private industry you know what happens?

you get fired.

Government has no mechanism for that after the election results are validated.

Same applies in government. You're conflating elected officials with the operational aspect of government. Government has many of the same mechanisms in the private sector and more. Open government laws has made it really easy to get fired for fraud, not telling the truth, or not handling information properly.

There are mechanisms for elected officials as well. Recall is available under certain conditions. Ethics violations are probably the most reasonable here. and the most likely to result in an outcome. The last is the ballot box itself.

Again what's the problem here? this cuts both ways. If a democrat got elected into office through lying about their bona fides would some posters still be equally reticent about passing legislation?

somehow I doubt it.

The problem is team sports.

[nfotiu]

I work for a pseudo federal government organization. We have similar background screening to Federal government jobs. There are a few things like undisclosed felonies that will automatically disqualify a candidate, but generally if there is anything suspect or that they couldn't confirm, they'll just give us a report and let us make a decision. It would seem reasonable to do a screening and just report the results.

That said, the Democrats spent 4 billion dollars on the midterms. I am a bit shocked they didn't spend a tiny percentage of that on vetting basic resume info on Republican candidates in competitive house races. I'm guessing they will now.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I work for a pseudo federal government organization. We have similar background screening to Federal government jobs. There are a few things like undisclosed felonies that will automatically disqualify a candidate, but generally if there is anything suspect or that they couldn't confirm, they'll just give us a report and let us make a decision. It would seem reasonable to do a screening and just report the results.

That said, the Democrats spent 4 billion dollars on the midterms. I am a bit shocked they didn't spend a tiny percentage of that on vetting basic resume info on Republican candidates in competitive house races. I'm guessing they will now.

I posted before, an intern could have done this.

[Paulie Walnuts]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1614433393004912642

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by SebC

If it's egregious and you are incapable of doing the job, sure. If the qualification you lied about is a legal requirement, you can expect to be fired and sued. But I would also suspect that plenty of people lie, and go on without incident if the lie has not impacted their ability to do the work, perhaps even if the lie gets discovered.

Now politics is different because your only performance evaluation is the next election. Everyone elected is axiomatically considered competent, so there is no mechanism to separate "lie affecting competence" from "lie not affecting competence". You're right that notwithstanding censure and recall legislation you can't fire an elected official. That's just the nature of government, it's how the system works. Calgary can't even fire Sean Chu, because people keep voting for him. That's democracy for you.

Just don't put me in that group. My concerns are around safeguarding democracy, not about protecting the party that seems to have more pathological liars.

I think it should be up to electors, not legislators, what is disqualifying and what isn't. Yet, I recognize that electors need the truth to do that. I'm not saying the idea is fundamentally bad, just that it's something that is dangerous and if it is to be written, needs to be written with extreme caution. It's not a slam-dunk nor is it low-hanging fruit.

Disqualifying your opponents tends to be a feature of states that we wouldn't usually associate with strong democracy. Even normalizing the concept of disqualification could push the USA closer to a dark path at a time when it's already struggling to uphold its institutions.

As far as I know, voters actually don't have the ability to recall Santos after the vote - so no Federal law allows for recall of a member of congress.

Since the GOP will circle their wagons, there is no chance of the House expelling Santos either, as it would require two thirds of the House to vote for that.

It's pretty clear that Santos committed fraud - knowingly lied about education and work background and family background - to manipulate the electorate.

Any disqualification would occur under bipartisan committees, either the Federal Elections Committee or the House Ethics Committee. Since they are both bipartisan committees, I see no legal jeopardy with that (especially since there's no chance of a bipartisan committee voting the same way).

US democracy is already on a dark path; candidates openly pushing conspiracy theories as part of their campaign platforms, lying (not exaggerating) on their CVs and being rewarded, not to mention the polarization that has gridlocked everything.

[Locke]

So what are we thinking about a second term for Sleepy Joe?

I'm thinking a 'Weekend at Bernie's' type situation.

Now all we need to do is find two lovable losers to carry him around and a really stylish pair of sunglasses.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Locke

So what are we thinking about a second term for Sleepy Joe?

I'm thinking a 'Weekend at Bernie's' type situation.

Now all we need to do is find two lovable losers to carry him around and a really stylish pair of sunglasses.

Can we just say “Biden”?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Can we just say “Biden”?

Nawww. I like the sound of "Sleepy Joe" versus "Putin's #### Boy."

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Locke

Why are any of these clowns taking classified documents home at all in the first place? Is there no control procedure?

Yeah that's a great point. When I worked for a Canadian organization requiring Top Secret clearance, every day when we left our office/labs, we had to pass through security checks where at random, people's bags would be checked solely for the purpose of people leaving with classified material when they shouldn't be. Maybe they got it out and by chance didn't get checked...

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Locke

So what are we thinking about a second term for Sleepy Joe?



I'm thinking a 'Weekend at Bernie's' type situation.



Now all we need to do is find two lovable losers to carry him around and a really stylish pair of sunglasses.

We could say that, but the same people already said that during the 2020 campaign, but I guess because Biden hasn't been that version they all loved to laugh at and predict, they can do it again this year!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Yeah that's a great point. When I worked for a Canadian organization requiring Top Secret clearance, every day when we left our office/labs, we had to pass through security checks where at random, people's bags would be checked solely for the purpose of people leaving with classified material when they shouldn't be. Maybe they got it out and by chance didn't get checked...

Sure, maybe. But doesnt that kind of imply intent? And if there was intent to take the documents out of a controlled area, for what reason?

I'm not entirely up to speed on all the specifics and details in the cases between Biden and Trump, the Trump case seems like he was just an idiot and then did 'Trump things.'

He's like a child afraid of getting in trouble so he makes things up like 'the dog ate it' or something.

Biden's seems more like...its hard to say. An accident? Oversight? But that kind of screams 'incompetence' on a few levels?

[Fuzz]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1614448577585074177

That should fix things.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://twitter.com/user/status/1614448577585074177

That should fix things.

Lol. This is the sort of backwards stuff happening in many states in the US which is part of the reason that Murica is falling behind the rest of the world. Instead of government providing incentives for its citizens to buy a cleaner vehicle, let's go the other way and work towards phasing them out altogether!

[Cali Panthers Fan]

I feel like any day now we will see a revival of the Luddites and mobs will go into electric car factories and smash up the place.

Okay, we get it, change is uncomfortable and many people fear it, but if you don't embrace it you're often left on the scrapheap of history.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Lol. This is the sort of backwards stuff happening in many states in the US which is part of the reason that Murica is falling behind the rest of the world. Instead of government providing incentives for its citizens to buy a cleaner vehicle, let's go the other way and work towards phasing them out altogether!

That seems a bit absurd to try make some claim that the whole country is falling behind the world because a state of 500,000 people proposes a stunt bill about EVs that has likely has no chance of passing.

Are we going to judge all of Canada on whatever crazy things are proposed by Danielle Smith's government?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

That seems a bit absurd to try make some claim that the whole country is falling behind the world because a state of 500,000 people proposes a stunt bill about EVs that has likely has no chance of passing.

Are we going to judge all of Canada on whatever crazy things are proposed by Danielle Smith's government?

You’re right, this is the first crazy or idiotic thing any state in the US has done, ever. It’s definitely not one of many things. We shouldn’t judge the entire US on this one thing, since it’s the only weird thing that has ever been proposed.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://twitter.com/user/status/1614448577585074177

That should fix things.

I don't understand hardcores on either side of this issue. All of the following can be true at the same time.

1. EVs are important to the future of transportation, ESPECIALLY short haul commuter consumer vehicles.
2. We will likely still need ICE vehicles, at least in the short term for heavy duty work.
3. Climate change is a thing.
4. Completely phasing out fossil fuels in my lifetime (i'm in my early 40s) is likely impossible.
5. We cannot continue to meet the world's energy demands solely on renewables and any future involves a combination of fossil fuels, renewables and carbon offset technologies (like CCS).

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I don't understand hardcores on either side of this issue. All of the following can be true at the same time.

1. EVs are important to the future of transportation, ESPECIALLY short haul commuter consumer vehicles.
2. We will likely still need ICE vehicles, at least in the short term for heavy duty work.
3. Climate change is a thing.
4. Completely phasing out fossil fuels in my lifetime (i'm in my early 40s) is likely impossible.
5. We cannot continue to meet the world's energy demands solely on renewables and any future involves a combination of fossil fuels, renewables and carbon offset technologies (like CCS).

Isn't your take the exact take of the mainstream left? I certainly agree with everything you said here, so maybe it's not a left/right thing; however, it's my understanding this is perfectly consistent with planning from Democrats in the US and liberals and NDP in Canada.

The US right is certainly the only party down there who is skeptical of climate change and they're the ones proposing phasing out EVs, which is, of course, idiotic.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I'm not aware of the NDP being in favour of any new O+G infrastructure ever existing ever, but maybe I've missed something.