American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

This is so ridiculous. The fact the Democrats couldn’t do proper oppo research should require the passing of a law.

Are you defective? The Republicans allowed a bald-faced liar to run on an entirely fabricated CV and personal history. Making this a Democratic Party problem is ridiculously stupid, have you been talking to the the Yoho ChatAI lately?

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I truly cannot understand how anybody could be against something like this. We already have enough issues with broken promises, slanderous campaign ads, and general misinformation in election cycles. You don't want to remove just a small amount of dishonesty in politics? I don't get you at all.

Two words: partisan hackery.

[JohnnyB]

Not saying this is what happened and why investigative journalists didn't uncover all this stuff when he was still just a candidate, but there is a perverse kind of incentive in news media that chases controversy to have a situation where the most controversial person actually ends up in office rather than weeded out by an election. Once in office, a controversial character can generate eye-grabbing headlines for the length of their term, as Trump did, rather than just the length of their campaign.

[Fuzz]

If investigative journalists are able to uncover classified documents locked in Biden's garage, I think the US may have bigger problems...

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I truly cannot understand how anybody could be against something like this. We already have enough issues with broken promises, slanderous campaign ads, and general misinformation in election cycles. You don't want to remove just a small amount of dishonesty in politics? I don't get you at all.

The problem, as always, is who determines and how do they determine truth? What is a lie, and what is an embellishment? Make a legal requirement for truth, and the person/people who determine truth suddenly have a huge weapon to wield against their opponents, particularly if it disqualifies them.

I'm not against honest disclosure in principle, I'm just saying that implementation will be difficult when pretty much every job application ever is about making yourself look as good as possible, and politics is even moreso. It may not be worth a legal solution when alternatives exist.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If investigative journalists are able to uncover classified documents locked in Biden's garage, I think the US may have bigger problems...

Just wait until they find the real George Santos locked in Rep. George Santos' garage.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by SebC

The problem, as always, is who determines and how do they determine truth? What is a lie, and what is an embellishment? Make a legal requirement for truth, and the person/people who determine truth suddenly have a huge weapon to wield against their opponents, particularly if it disqualifies them.

I'm not against honest disclosure in principle, I'm just saying that implementation will be difficult when pretty much every job application ever is about making yourself look as good as possible, and politics is even moreso. It may not be worth a legal solution when alternatives exist.

Yes. Very well said. This will be weaponized by everyone. Should Elizabeth Warren be disqualified because she said she was indigenous when she might as little as 1/1024? I really don't think that type of issue calls for a legal solution.

[Dion]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1613582027722203136

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by SebC

The problem, as always, is who determines and how do they determine truth? What is a lie, and what is an embellishment? Make a legal requirement for truth, and the person/people who determine truth suddenly have a huge weapon to wield against their opponents, particularly if it disqualifies them.

I'm not against honest disclosure in principle, I'm just saying that implementation will be difficult when pretty much every job application ever is about making yourself look as good as possible, and politics is even moreso. It may not be worth a legal solution when alternatives exist.

I'm pretty sure there's a bare minimum of standards that can be verified.

"I worked at this company"-there must be a record of employment to verify.

"I graduated from this university"-pretty easy to verify attendance and what degree was conferred.

This isn't rocket science guys. I'm not talking the identity politics stuff of "Hey, I'm Jew-ish, not Jewish". This is easily confirmed facts. I don't think that's beyond the pale.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I'm pretty sure there's a bare minimum of standards that can be verified.

"I worked at this company"-there must be a record of employment to verify.

"I graduated from this university"-pretty easy to verify attendance and what degree was conferred.

This isn't rocket science guys. I'm not talking the identity politics stuff of "Hey, I'm Jew-ish, not Jewish". This is easily confirmed facts. I don't think that's beyond the pale.

I agree. If these can’t be / won’t be verified, what is the point of asking for any of it? Or as a society are we past the need for facts and anyone can make up whatever they want with no recourse?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Or as a society are we past the need for facts and anyone can make up whatever they want with no recourse?

Misrepresent yourself and start practicing law having not passed the Bar, you're gonna be fined and/or going to jail.

Misrepresent yourself and get into a government role as an elected official? Not only is it okay, it's the other political party's fault for not busting you on it.

[Locke]

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

[photon]

I would guess the classified documents follow them as they go about their day, they're probably almost always working to some degree.. even if they're cleaning their garage and then get interrupted to take a call about something and they need the docs to refer to.

To me it would depend a lot on the degree of classification.. there's different levels, some docs need to be viewed in a SCIF only, while others are probably only classified because things are over classified.

[IGGYRULES]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Misrepresent yourself and start practicing law having not passed the Bar, you're gonna be fined and/or going to jail.

Misrepresent yourself and get into a government role as an elected official? Not only is it okay, it's the other political party's fault for not busting you on it.

And get this... They're (elected officials) the law makers. Smh

[OldDutch]

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?

There is, but the latest reasoning (excuses) is that Biden was unusually busy in his final days doing stuff. His team was obliged and trying to shut the office down properly, but Biden was still traveling and working right to the end.

Frankly is a poor excuse. The rules were there to shut the office down to avoid this issue he ignored it. He owns the consequences, especially after finger wagging Trump.

The fact he turned it over quick is good, but under the timing it politically a massive blunder. Trump ranted that all Presidents take these documents and the Liberal media howled. Oopsie.

Hopefully the Dems block him next election, but given their lack of anyone palatable they probably can’t.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

https://twitter.com/user/status/1613548933241774083

I’m not a lawyer but adding “and for other purposes.” seems unnecessary and could be problematic once politicians are coached on how to use that against their opponents.

The overall concept is great, but in the states I’m not sure how much of a difference it’s going to make to the political landscape on its own so long as the media is still allowed to lie for the politicians with impunity to get them elected.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1614106184499302405

It was going so well for him.

[Locke]

Well...if he takes these kinds of documents home for a brisk skim while clearing the garage it only makes sense that they should investigate his emails!!

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by SebC

The problem, as always, is who determines and how do they determine truth? What is a lie, and what is an embellishment? Make a legal requirement for truth, and the person/people who determine truth suddenly have a huge weapon to wield against their opponents, particularly if it disqualifies them.

I'm not against honest disclosure in principle, I'm just saying that implementation will be difficult when pretty much every job application ever is about making yourself look as good as possible, and politics is even moreso. It may not be worth a legal solution when alternatives exist.

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.

[SebC]

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.

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.

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

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.

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.

[Faust]

Democrats coalesce around a Joe Biden 2024 campaign as reelection decision looms:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/09/polit...024/index.html