Poor poor Alexandria

[Chuck Nuggets]

You have accepted her lying by saying her lies are not as bad as Trumps. You have accepted by saying that she is a new representative and that her lies to not carry the weight of the lies of another politician. You are stating, in so many words, that her lies are not bad, as long as there is Trump.

Every one in here that is saying her lying is not as bad as Trump is giving her a free pass. Why? Is there a level of unethical behavior that is condoned by all of those who are saying her lies are not as bad? From a NEW representative no less. Would you accept a lie from a professional peer as long as that peer did not have the experience of another peer whom you do not care for?



It is only absurd for those who accept that lying is ok for one, but not ok for another. The absurdity is the hypocrisy that has been exhibited in refusing to make either one lying the equivalent of the other.

She is not a child, and she is a freaking US Representative who has held up Trump to a certain standard, as have you. Yet she is unwilling to even walk the walk herself, and you are willing to forgive her, or minimize you her actions.

All because you do not want to equate her with another liar.

Your actions in defending her, or minimizing her can only be taken as partisan.

It is only absurd to those who do not like being told to look into the mirror. To many of us the absurdity is that after all the crying about Trumps lies, you would temporize her lies with a facile defense of inexperience or that her lies are not as bad as Trumps. To many of us, a lie is a lie, there is no level of culpability, and your defense or temporization can only be seen as a partisan act. If it were not partisan you would not have involved yourself in this thread, or you would have involved yourself in holding her to the same level of accountability of Trump who is another Newb on the political block no matter his exposure or position.

Or you would have called out those who do think a lying politician is not as bad as a lying politician.

Holding one to the same level of accountability is not a partisan act. Nor is it absurd.




I do not need to find other politicians that you find agreeable to make my point. Either a person is a liar, has lied, or they are not and have not. When one allows bias to intrude upon their ethics one is willing to determine degrees of goodness or bad. One lie will lead to another, and another, and if that person, no matter the position, is not held to the same level of accountability we end up with Trump.

You can pass her lies off as "inexperience" or that they are acceptable because she is a lesser politician, but I just see it as a corruption of ethics. No matter the title a person is called.

That others do not see it the same way, to be willing to allow for unethical behavior based up a lack of "experience", is the reason why we have Trumps in office, and politicians that complain about being called out for lying instead of owning their actions.

Hold everyone accountable to the same degree, or you have no room to judge. Ever.

If you do accept certain levels of lying as acceptable, if you try to deny that certain lies are less harmful than others (in a political arena) you are judging from a corrupted ethical position and no amount of semantics will hide that.

You never provided that information that I asked for, nor have you retracted your statement. Please do one or the other.

Creepy, isn't it.

[guido61]

You have accepted her lying by saying her lies are not as bad as Trumps. You have accepted by saying that she is a new representative and that her lies to not carry the weight of the lies of another politician. You are stating, in so many words, that her lies are not bad, as long as there is Trump.

WRONG.

I have been CLEAR, REPEATEDLY (not in 'so many words', but ABSOLUTELY CLEAR) that the difference between the two is their position and the length of time they have been around. It has nothing to do with "Trump" or party. It'd be the same thing if we were talking about Obama or Clinton.

Every one in here that is saying her lying is not as bad as Trump is giving her a free pass. Why? Is there a level of unethical behavior that is condoned by all of those who are saying her lies are not as bad? From a NEW representative no less. Would you accept a lie from a professional peer as long as that peer did not have the experience of another peer whom you do not care for?

No one is giving her a "free pass". My first post on page 1 explained how she's not getting a free pass and I've never said it was wrong for any of those outlets or people to be critical of her. They should be.

Although maybe it should be pointed out that her "lies" do seem to be more of a lack of knowledge than an out-and-out Trump level lie. So there's THAT difference too, I suppose.

Your actions in defending her, or minimizing her can only be taken as partisan.

Again, WRONG.

How on earth is it "partisan" to point out the obviously, true and NON-PARTISAN differences between a President of the United States and a first term House Representative.

Again, I've given you examples of House members of equal stature to her and ample opportunity to find where I haven't treated them the same as I've treated her and all you have is "SHREIK! ACK! TRUMP! PARTISAN!"??

Weak. Sad.

Hold everyone accountable to the same degree, or you have no room to judge. Ever.

Bullsh*t. No one holds "everyone accountable to the same degree". Position and experience OF COURSE have to be taken into account.

If you do accept certain levels of lying as acceptable, if you try to deny that certain lies are less harmful than others (in a political arena) you are judging from a corrupted ethical position and no amount of semantics will hide that.

Where have I ever said lying was acceptable? I've never once said her lying was "acceptable". I've said from the start she should be, and clearly is, being held to account for it. You're putting an AWFUL lot of words into my mouth, and considering the insulting tone you're using while doing so?

Kindly show where I've said her lying was acceptable or retract.

You never provided that information that I asked for, nor have you retracted your statement. Please do one or the other.

Sorry, I guess I missed it amongst all the longwinded caterwauling. Please repeat the request.

[slodge]

I guess it’s an ‘agreed to disagree’ situation.

I see a clear difference between a first term congressman getting her facts wrong in a twitter post and the potus repeating long disproven falsehoods in an Oval Office address on national television.

Gp2112 believes that makes me a hypocrite.

I believe his refusal to acknowledge the difference is dangerously naive.

[jorhay1]

i actually kinda like that girl, she’s cute as hell and young enough to learn – heck, maybe someone will drop one of those pocket constitution and bill of rights books and she’ll find it and actually read it. point is, she’s 29 – pelosi is 79, feinstein and grassley were both born in 1933 (85ish), mitch mconnell is 76, hillary is 71 and trump is 72, biden clocking in at 76, and these are just scratching the surface. my point is, why is our country being run by the f@cking crypt keepers, more and more we have nothing more than a bunch of septuagenarians and octogenarians engaging in a boot pissing ego war - and we accept that as our government. apparently joseph de maistre was correct - "every country has the government it deserves".

That’s exactly how I feel.

[jorhay1]

All politicians lie. She will become a better liar in time.

[gp2112]

WRONG.

I have been CLEAR, REPEATEDLY (not in 'so many words', but ABSOLUTELY CLEAR) that the difference between the two is their position and the length of time they have been around. It has nothing to do with "Trump" or party. It'd be the same thing if we were talking about Obama or Clinton.



No one is giving her a "free pass". My first post on page 1 explained how she's not getting a free pass and I've never said it was wrong for any of those outlets or people to be critical of her. They should be.

Although maybe it should be pointed out that her "lies" do seem to be more of a lack of knowledge than an out-and-out Trump level lie. So there's THAT difference too, I suppose.





Again, WRONG.

How on earth is it "partisan" to point out the obviously, true and NON-PARTISAN differences between a President of the United States and a first term House Representative.

Again, I've given you examples of House members of equal stature to her and ample opportunity to find where I haven't treated them the same as I've treated her and all you have is "SHREIK! ACK! TRUMP! PARTISAN!"??

Weak. Sad.






Bullsh*t. No one holds "everyone accountable to the same degree". Position and experience OF COURSE have to be taken into account.



Where have I ever said lying was acceptable? I've never once said her lying was "acceptable". I've said from the start she should be, and clearly is, being held to account for it. You're putting an AWFUL lot of words into my mouth, and considering the insulting tone you're using while doing so?

Kindly show where I've said her lying was acceptable or retract.



Sorry, I guess I missed it amongst all the longwinded caterwauling. Please repeat the request.

If one lies, they lie. There is no distinction.

Unless, of course, the one making the distinction is ethically corrupt. For those of us who try to be ethical, there is no distinction-You are either a liar or you are not.

And if you do lie and get caught you own it, you do not deflect.

You may call it shrieking, so be it. Your opinion, just like mine is mine. Yet I am not really shrieking, I am responding to those that shriek about Trump lying, and then temporize the lies of another with idiotic explanations of: Time in position, Political position, knowledge, or weak-minded excuses as to why one's lies are not as bad as another's.

Caterwauling. Lol. I am not the one trying to defend or temporize a liar. I am merely calling out those, including you, who would defend a liar and make a distinction about levels of lying. As if one liar was better than the other.

Once you make that distinction you have, despite shrieking protestations, proven that you are operating on a corrupt ethical plane.

Please present the link I asked for, or retract. Stop dissembling.

[gp2112]

I guess it’s an ‘agreed to disagree’ situation.

I see a clear difference between a first term congressman getting her facts wrong in a twitter post and the potus repeating long disproven falsehoods in an Oval Office address on national television.

Gp2112 believes that makes me a hypocrite.

I believe his refusal to acknowledge the difference is dangerously naive.

It is a hypocritical viewpoint. One is either a liar, or they are not.

In this case they are both elected leaders with influence. Sure, her influence and reach is not as great as his, but to defend or temporize her lies only empowers her to continue to do the same.

I know how the world works, I just feel that anyone who shrieks about one person doing something should shriek about anyone else doing the same.

The naivete is thinking that it is ok for anyone in that position to lie, or to defend their lies as "lesser", and think it is ok to do so.

You call me naive, yet you are allowing, or making excuses for one person to do the same as another whom you castigate for doing the same.

Naive is not being able to see the blatant hypocrisy in doing so.

I am not naive, I am just self aware enough to not allow one to get away with something, (or temporize their actions with facile excuses), no matter their lot in life, if I castigate another for doing the same.

It is telling that so many progressives, the people who claim to want everyone to be treated the same, are unwilling to put their money where there mouth is in this case.

[gp2112]

Are you 100 percent sure she just got her facts wrong or are you projecting? Are you taking a politicians word for it?

If you are then you are not treating everyone as an equal.

While I am not a Trumpkin, nor am I very conservative, at least I am able to discern the difference between ethical behavior and unethical behavior.


That seems to be lacking with many of the Progressives in here who are pushing for different treatment of different people.

That is not very progressive and is immensely hypocritical.

[slodge]

Of course I can’t be 100% sure she just got her facts wrong - anymore than you can be 100% sure that she is being willfully misleading.

If she continues to repeat the wrong facts no matter how many times they’re disproven (as trump does,) amasses a long history of getting facts wrong (as trump has,) or tells untruths so obvious that it’s clear she has no regard for reality (as trump has,)
it will certainly change my opinion of her.

The fact is that trump squandered the benefit of the doubt before he set foot in the Oval Office - for those who have been aware of his history it was squandered long before he even announced his candidacy.

That’s not hypocrisy.

That’s reality.

[gp2112]

A lie is a lie. There are no degrees of dishonesty. No matter who the person is.

You are unwilling to give equal treatment to everyone.

[thankyou]

All politicians lie. She will become a better liar in time.

All people lie. That's a fact, Jack. In a way, I feel like gp2112 about it, people should do all they can to be truthful. In that some lies do actual damage, though we may never know how much. It's why I don't like alts here. They are liars from the get-go, because they agree to the TOS, then (sometimes blatantly) ignore them. I am, however, in agreement with the other opinions that say AOC's lying is not as consequential as Trump's. Or McConnell's. Or Pelosi's.

We have one member here who likes to call others liars when they either get their facts wrong, or just have a different opinion about those facts. To me, if he is the alt of a previous poster with exactly the same style as his, that kind of lying is more detrimental to the forum than someone who stumbles with facts or interprets them differently. No doubt, some think it's clever to troll. I can see some of the humor, but it fails when it happens over and over.

[BA.Barcolounger]

It is a hypocritical viewpoint. One is either a liar, or they are not.

In this case they are both elected leaders with influence. Sure, her influence and reach is not as great as his, but to defend or temporize her lies only empowers her to continue to do the same.

I know how the world works, I just feel that anyone who shrieks about one person doing something should shriek about anyone else doing the same.

The naivete is thinking that it is ok for anyone in that position to lie, or to defend their lies as "lesser", and think it is ok to do so.

You call me naive, yet you are allowing, or making excuses for one person to do the same as another whom you castigate for doing the same.

Naive is not being able to see the blatant hypocrisy in doing so.

I am not naive, I am just self aware enough to not allow one to get away with something, (or temporize their actions with facile excuses), no matter their lot in life, if I castigate another for doing the same.

It is telling that so many progressives, the people who claim to want everyone to be treated the same, are unwilling to put their money where there mouth is in this case.

"Being wrong" and "intentionally lying" are different.

[oldsoapbars]

The only way for AOE to rectify this is by post nekkid pictures of herself on the internet

[thankyou]

The only way for AOE to rectify this is by post nekkid pictures of herself on the internet

(And the House of Commons says) Here! Here!.

[guido61]

If one lies, they lie. There is no distinction.

Unless, of course, the one making the distinction is ethically corrupt. For those of us who try to be ethical, there is no distinction-You are either a liar or you are not.

And if you do lie and get caught you own it, you do not deflect.

You may call it shrieking, so be it. Your opinion, just like mine is mine. Yet I am not really shrieking, I am responding to those that shriek about Trump lying, and then temporize the lies of another with idiotic explanations of: Time in position, Political position, knowledge, or weak-minded excuses as to why one's lies are not as bad as another's.

Caterwauling. Lol. I am not the one trying to defend or temporize a liar. I am merely calling out those, including you, who would defend a liar and make a distinction about levels of lying. As if one liar was better than the other.

Once you make that distinction you have, despite shrieking protestations, proven that you are operating on a corrupt ethical plane.

We can agree to disagree about whether all politicians who are caught lying should be held to exact same degree of public account for it regardless of their position or stature. But if you are going to accuse me of hypocrisy and that it's for partisan reasons, then you need to find examples of me doing so based on MY criteria for holding political liars to account, not YOURS.

I've even given examples of some comparable public figures to her for which you might try to find examples of me being hypocritical or partisan based on my clearly laid out criteria. You're free to also find others. Sorry, but you continually trying to complain that I'm not holding her to YOUR standard is complete BS. And all the personal insults along the way don't make your case any stronger.

I've been clear on all the pertinent points from the very beginning. Including the most important one of all: AOC isn't being let off in the broad scheme of things. There are PLENTY of media outlets skewering her over this. We've all been talking about it here for 8 pages. That she isn't being as roundly and widely skewered as would the POTUS? Sorry if you find that to be unfair, but that's just the way the real world works. U2 sells more tickets than some newly-signed rock band.

Please present the link I asked for, or retract. Stop dissembling.

I don't know what you're asking for. Please quote the statement of mine that you believe was in error and we can discuss it.

[gp2112]

"Being wrong" and "intentionally lying" are different.

Are you able to state without a doubt that you know she was "being wrong"? Or are you just believing what she and her supporters are telling you?

As it is now you are not treating everyone equally.

[oldsoapbars]

Hill

Airy

US.

Gotta love trump supporters clutching pearls over a nobody lying yet display unwavering support for the most corrupt, immoral, lying POS to ever sit in the big chair.

I find it very ironic that trumpanzees could have such a deep sense of self unawareness to think that this is a way to gain moral high ground.

It's a lot like living in the hole below the outhouse and complaining about how bad the shrubs smell

[BA.Barcolounger]

Are you able to state without a doubt that you know she was "being wrong"? Or are you just believing what she and her supporters are telling you?

As it is now you are not treating everyone equally.

If she repeats those statements after they have been proven false, or insists that they are true despite evidence to the contrary, then we can all safely call them lies.

[slodge]

Also, if she builds up a long history of getting her facts wrong when the actual facts are readily available and clear, it would diminish her right to the benefit of the doubt.

[gp2112]

She whined about being called out and tried to deflect by bringing up Trump.

She doubled down on her lies with her whining and deflections. She chose not to own her own lies and you are giving her a break because you refuse to treat everyone as an equal.