Tulsi Gabbard roasts GOP congressman-elect for blatant lies

Why do you feel the need to defend Elizabeth Warren? You can't have it both ways...

 

But I don't defend her. TBH it is people like Elizabeth Warren than makes it so I would never vote for her party. She attacks the very profession I am in.

My point is why resort to whataboutism. I tell my children not to use whataboutism when they use the whole "but what about Johnny, he is allow too". If you have a valid defense then make it. Whataboutism is simplistic defense and a cop out. The worst part of it is people use it to point out hypocrisy but then normally the very use of it is hypocritical. For example if you were defending Elizabeth Warren when the news broke about her ancestory it would make sense but my guess is you were not. So if you disagreed with her actions then isn't using her example hypocritical on your part.

Finally the problem with whataboutism is the situations are rarely the same. If you honestly think that what Warren did is equivalent to what Santos did then you have difficulty with the ability to quantify actions. At best her actions equate to Santos identifying his stories of his grandparent heritage. He never worked at Goldman Sachs, he never worked for Citigroup, he never graduated from NYU, he never graduated from Baruch, he has no degree from any college period. Education and work experience are paramount for a resume. Any of those alone would be simple grounds to fire someone in the private sector.

 

Tulsi impersonating someone who stands for integrity while filling in for a Faux host who impersonates someone who stands for democracy. How fitting.

 

he confessed, but then tried to turn it into he makes mistakes, everyone does, and he is brave for admiting it.... (after he got caught)

 

Warren did a lot worse than Santos in my opinion.

 

TBH unless there is more to the Warren story than I am familiar I disagree BUT regardless of that fact you should be able to focus on the Santos story without the whataboutism. I have no problem with someone wanting to defend him but tell us why his actions are defensible without simply saying someone else did it. If you think it is fair to lie about having degrees and working for companies that he never did then explain why. I have already said I understand people will embellish their resumes BUT there is a big difference between claiming you had better marks than you actually did or exaggerate your role at the firm then actually never attending college and never working at the companies. That is not embellishment it is fraud. It is called broken trust and a fireable offense.

If Santos were to voluntarily step down and run again with his real credentials and win I would accept it. Just like I may not want Warren in the Senate but she was re-elected with the knowledge that she lied about her ancestry.

BTW if there was a movement to remove Warren I would have supported it but her actions are unrelated to Santos.

 

Yeah, saw a clip of that this morning. How did this guy make it trough the campaign successfully?

 

I am responding to the "congressman-elect for blatant lies" in the OP ... so what are you talking about...Elizabeth Warren = "congresswoman-elect for blatant lies"

 

I am sorry but I do not understand the meaning of that response. What are you trying to say? I was not me that brought up Warren, it was you. The OPs was about Tulsi's interview with Santos. I even reposted the video since the link did not work for me. As far as I can see you were the person that introduced Warren to this discussion.

 

The OP introduced "congressman-elect for blatant lies" into the discussion.... If you don't want yo acknowledge Warren as ""congresswoman-elect for blatant lies", then we can stick Omar as ""congresswoman-elect for blatant lies", or Rashida Tlaib ""congresswoman-elect for blatant lies", and last but not least ""congresswoman-elect for blatant lies" would be the queen B herself

Pelosi to candidates: Say whatever you need to win – I’ll get your support after the election

 

So instead of RAISING the bar for your own party - you LOWER it to match the party you hate.
And that doesn't set off some kind of moral alarm in your brain.
THAT'S what's really wrong with American politics.

 

Well Warren is a Senator but Santos is joining the house as a congressman but regardless, are you saying that your defense is that because Warren lied in the past, it justifies Santos lies now? Did you defend Warren at that time by saying some other Senator before her lied too? I suggest instead of the childish whataboutism defense you judge each case separately on it on merits.

 

Can I ask you a very simple question?

Why do you feel the need to defend this person? Why can't you just ignore all the whataboutism and just say what this guy did is totally wrong and unacceptable? Why do you have such a sense of loyalty to someone you have probably never met? Correct me if I am wrong but is it simply because of the "R" after his name? Is the tribalism politics that important to you that you will rush to the defense of anyone on your side politically?

 

Why are you so determined to condemn "this person " and totally ignore that his actions are just replicating those of Warren, Omar, Rashida Tlaib , or the queen B herself... your hypocrisy is showing...

why are you scared of the whataboutism?

 

As you dismiss Omar, Rashida Tlaib and the queen B herself... he lied, they lied.... hypocrisy 101

 

as you acknowledge your party is a lower bar... interesting... does that register in your brain?

 

You are mistaken. I condemn this person because I strongly disagree with his actions. If there was a thread on any of those others I would be willing to discuss their actions without needing to resort to any form of whataboutism. I am able to judge the events independently because my answers are not determined by which political party they belong to.

I am also not afraid of whataboutism, I just because it is an ineffective and ridiculous way to argue a point. Instead of being able to articulate real reasons for a debate you are using the "but..., but... what about him defense..." I you have any real beliefs of you own you should be able so better than they did it too.

Also notice I answer your questions whereas you ignore mine and simply ask another question because even you realize you cannot provide a rational answer.

 

Please show me where I dismissed them? You have been on this forum for 1 year I have been here for close to 9. I am sure if you search through my history you should be able to substantiate that claim.

BTW who is queen B?

 

Why are you all of a sudden jumping on this bandwagon... his actions are no different than of those around you for years now,,,

 

Because it is a current event. Because his actions are extreme. I said this is in another thread but not sure if I said it in this thread. Part of my role was recruiting for many years. I have interviewed and hire dozens of programmers and engineers. Never have I seen anyone lie like this on a resume. Santos is correct. People embellish. I have seen embellished resumes. This goes far beyond embellishing. Embellishing is not making up places you worked. Embellishing is not making up you graduated from 2 colleges when you have no degrees. If anyone of the people you mentioned did the same thing I would condemn them just as much. Also I think the mistake you make is you think I am a democrat. I have no extra sympathy for the people in that group and I am not even sure who some of them are.

The problem with your attitude of normalizing it instead of condemning it is it leads to the politicians we have. We all complain about crappy politicians. Well maybe if we all call out those that do things like this the situation will become better rather than use the whataboutism they all do it and move on.

 

Any of them marry their brother?

 

I heard that story but I do not know the details. If you are looking for my opinion I think it is illegal in the US and if true I would support whatever legal punishment available. If she is charged with a crime then she should be removed.

Notice again how I answer all of your questions where as you ignore everything I write and either use the whataboutism defense or ask other questions. Maybe that is worth some self examination because obviously one of us is willing to defend their beliefs where as the other chooses to distracts and avoids.

Also notice how I was able to formulate an answer without using whatabout Clinton and Monica or whatabout Trump and Stormy. They do not matter. We can discuss the case on its own merits.

 

I'm an independent precisely so that I don't have to defend a party I don't believe in.
But you avoided my question.

 

there are no question marks... you have an odd way of asking for an answer to a question you did not ask.

"""So instead of RAISING the bar for your own party - you LOWER it to match the party you hate.
And that doesn't set off some kind of moral alarm in your brain.
THAT'S what's really wrong with American politics.""

 

Good on her