George Santos and the issue of political honesty

[The Rogue Wolf]

I cannot, for the life of me, fathom why this isn't the case in Santos' situation.

He's a Republican, and to them, the only possible act of wrongdoing is to not be a Republican.

And it would also require the average voter to know about such measures, and care about the quality of their candidates. Which yeah, good luck with that. You couldn't get the average voter to agree today is Thursday.

"I don't want to spend ten minutes going out to vote! A new episode of Who's The Baby Daddy is coming on!"

 

[Ag3ma]

Isn't 10 the square root of 100? I can buy that.

Yes, for some reason I had cube root on the brain. Even still, if we call it 30 (for simplicity), it means that each of those 30 are doing about 30 times more work than each of the 970.

My personal record: I was on a team of around 10 and my all time ticket record: I was dealing with 20 while the entire rest of the team was doing 10. My wife is complaining of the same sort of thing in her organization. I told her it isn't her job to bring this to the attention of her manager but she can't help herself. In my case, I ended up in the hospital for a couple of months, home for a few months more. My absence was noticed as you mentioned above. My boss was taken aside and told if he can't motivate the team, they'd find someone else who could. The issue had to be mashed in his face to notice. More below.

I was complaining to one of the deputy heads about some of the staff being crummy. They're professionals, can't they do better? At which point he said I needed to take the perspective that the staff aren't really different from the students: some of them are ace, some of them are okay, and some of them suck. Management is about managing the ones who suck: talent looks after itself, it's mediocrity that needs the management. Of course, plenty of managers suck, too. Given I am a sort of lower middle management in a kind of a way, I might suck at it a bit. Which would be a shame, because I was pretty good at the level down.

The public has an amazing ability to ignore things in a politician that is on their team. Worse than lying, Ted Kennedy, for instance, appears to have committed vehicular homicide. He appears to have been drunk driving, crashed into some water, walked off. The next day they found a dead girl in his car who had suffocated. He didn't do a day in prison and we re-elected repeatedly.

Ted Kennedy could maybe, just maybe, get a pass because it was heavily scrutinised and nothing could be conclusively pinned on him. I certainly think if I were one of his voters, I would have been uncomfortable.

 

[Silvanus]

As to George, there is a very special pointy, spicy and burning place in hell for people who steal charity money from sick dogs and let the dogs die painfully of cancer.

((This isn't greatly important in the grand scheme of things, but the tumour/deposit the dog had was benign-- growing but not cancerous. Just by the by. Your main point stands ofc)).

If we cannot trust parties to do it, then there needs to be some mechanism to force a new election in that seat, such as public vote or an independent adjudicator with the ability to remove the politician from post.

How do you feel about our UK system-- in which if 10% of an MP's constituents request it, a by-election is triggered?

 

[Ag3ma]

How do you feel about our UK system-- in which if 10% of an MP's constituents request it, a by-election is triggered?

I'd like to see more evidence of how it functions before comment. UK MPs usually resign if they've done something sufficiently humiliating.

I think recalls also need to be treated with care as they are open to abuse: e.g. attempting to unseat MPs of a party that are doing badly in the polls even if the MP has personally not done anything wrong.

 

[Baffle]

if the MP has personally not done anything wrong.

Beep boop does not compute!

 

[gorfias]

Yes, for some reason I had cube root on the brain. Even still, if we call it 30 (for simplicity), it means that each of those 30 are doing about 30 times more work than each of the 970.

Gotta agree: as the number goes up it has to be less plausible. I wonder if I heard wrong. Maybe 25 and under? The team I was on was under 25 and that was the case for us.

I was complaining to one of the deputy heads about some of the staff being crummy. They're professionals, can't they do better? At which point he said I needed to take the perspective that the staff aren't really different from the students: some of them are ace, some of them are okay, and some of them suck. Management is about managing the ones who suck: talent looks after itself, it's mediocrity that needs the management. Of course, plenty of managers suck, too. Given I am a sort of lower middle management in a kind of a way, I might suck at it a bit. Which would be a shame, because I was pretty good at the level down.

Yeah, my 1st manager was "ignorance is bliss" and focused on issues other than that of staff productivity. My next manager was derelict. He knew of a serious problem with one of his staff and how that person mistreated others and did nothing. Long story how that worker got away with it. But in the meantime, I quiz the missus: is someone else's failure at work impacting you personally? Have you been criticized for not being productive enough even though you are productive but as a team you are not? If the answer is yes, defend yourself to the extent that you are not criticizing other workers. If you have to do so, only then criticize other workers. Otherwise? You run risks, especially if you are in a union. What will complaining do to your reputation? Will the other worker have legal actions against you especially where a union contract exists? Will the manager take this as you telling them they aren't doing their job (which you are even if just trying to be helpful) or that you are putting work on YOUR manager's plate (telling them to do something about the under-performing staff!) I know a number of people, including the missus, that dearly miss being top individual contributor and want to leave management. The wife took a substantial pay cut and actually did so and is happy to have done so.

Ted Kennedy could maybe, just maybe, get a pass because it was heavily scrutinised and nothing could be conclusively pinned on him. I certainly think if I were one of his voters, I would have been uncomfortable.

I'm pretty sure anyone not of such importance could not be seen drinking heavily at a party, drive off with a young lady, have a car crash, leave the vehicle (for which Kennedy did receive a 2 month suspended sentence) return to find the young lady dead in the car and not find themselves going to prison for some time as the circumstantial case is pretty solid.

I've heard of other whoppers told by other politicians (and reporters) that didn't end their careers. Santos and Biden do seem to be in a league of their own. Other issues will take down Biden (the document scandal is, I think, about his own backers wanting him to stop leaving a door open for a 2024 run) but not his whoppers. We can hope Santos is a different matter. The guy is a loon.

 

[Ag3ma]

Gotta agree: as the number goes up it has to be less plausible. I wonder if I heard wrong. Maybe 25 and under? The team I was on was under 25 and that was the case for us.

I think 25 and under much more plausible mathematically. Maybe the quote was that a square root of the employees earn half the total wage bill?

Yeah, my 1st manager was "ignorance is bliss" and focused on issues other than that of staff productivity. My next manager was derelict. He knew of a serious problem with one of his staff and how that person mistreated others and did nothing. Long story how that worker got away with it. But in the meantime, I quiz the missus: is someone else's failure at work impacting you personally? Have you been criticized for not being productive enough even though you are productive but as a team you are not? If the answer is yes, defend yourself to the extent that you are not criticizing other workers. If you have to do so, only then criticize other workers. Otherwise? You run risks, especially if you are in a union. What will complaining do to your reputation? Will the other worker have legal actions against you especially where a union contract exists? Will the manager take this as you telling them they aren't doing their job (which you are even if just trying to be helpful) or that you are putting work on YOUR manager's plate (telling them to do something about the under-performing staff!) I know a number of people, including the missus, that dearly miss being top individual contributor and want to leave management. The wife took a substantial pay cut and actually did so and is happy to have done so.

I think you have a right to report incompetence or dangerous conduct. However, the first response is better not disciplinary, because once a disciplinary route is taken there's not going back and it's going to leave permanent scars on the team. Better is to suggest the co-worker could to with support to help them improve; of course also offering that assistance without involving management.

I fear that I do not much enjoy management. I don't really like authority at all, either over me or exercising it myself.

I'm pretty sure anyone not of such importance could not be seen drinking heavily at a party, drive off with a young lady, have a car crash, leave the vehicle (for which Kennedy did receive a 2 month suspended sentence) return to find the young lady dead in the car and not find themselves going to prison for some time as the circumstantial case is pretty solid.

Perks of being rich.

I've heard of other whoppers told by other politicians (and reporters) that didn't end their careers. Santos and Biden do seem to be in a league of their own. Other issues will take down Biden (the document scandal is, I think, about his own backers wanting him to stop leaving a door open for a 2024 run) but not his whoppers. We can hope Santos is a different matter. The guy is a loon.

It's quite a manufactured scandal for Biden, though, isn't it.

It is clear that high-ranking politicians have a habit of taking important documents home to work on them there, and occasionally mislaying them (that's of course a bad thing). The achives then check for anything missing when they leave office and send them a notice to return them. As long as the archives apparently get almost everything sufficiently important back, case closed. Maybe they are prepared to write off a handful as lost.

But we have issues of scale and attitude here. Biden and Pence have had documents found, but they also co-operated fully and only had maybe up to a dozen. This is the realm of accidental error. Trump however had hundreds, if not thousands, and his response to returning them was very clearly somewhere between lacking diligence and deliberate obstruction such that a huge number remained. We might note that someone in his team shopped him to the FBI, and I think his lawyers were really cagey about one of the sign-offs that he'd complied with the archives, implying they knew something might be wrong. If he'd only just complied properly like everyone else, there wouldn't be a whiff of a story here. But that's Trump: he cannot help but self-sabotage with his narcissistic compulsions.

Then what happens is that to protect their own, people run round with "No you" accusations, even when they are barely a fraction as serious. And so we have a vast amount of rooting around of other politicians. I don't mind this, per se. I do however object to equating Trump with Biden and Pence, because it's like equating someone who embezzled $10,000 from his company to two guys who accidentally went home with a few pens from the company stationery cupboard.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As an aside, the title of this thread sounds like either a really bad band, or possibly a Harry Potter spin-off book.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

As an aside, the title of this thread sounds like either a really bad band, or possibly a Harry Potter spin-off book.

It can be both.

 

[Chimpzy]

It can be both.

What music style tho? One thing for sure, it'd be one of those bands with a revolving door line-up.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

What music style tho? One thing for sure, it'd be one of those bands with a revolving door line-up.

Darkwave, obvs.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I would draw a distinction between policy and personal information. You get a job on the basis of your CV - your employer can then see what your competence is like and promote, leave or fire you accordingly. But if you told a pack of howlers on your CV and get caught, I don't think your employer need wait to the next annual appraisal.

Similarly, some light embroidering of one's CV with exaggeration is not unusual. Making stuff up completely out of nowhere like fake qualifications is beyond the pale.

Although very much at the lower end of mendacity in some circumstances, I also think one of the biggest indicators that the guy has serious problems is that he claimed his mother died on 9/11 for... why exactly? Attention and sympathy? He saw a major event going on and needed to be involved?

He seems to be a pathological liar, yeah.

Anyway, my point is that the whole institution is so rotten that this doesn't really make me think he's appreciably worse than most of his colleagues.

 

[Burnhardt]

How do you feel about our UK system-- in which if 10% of an MP's constituents request it, a by-election is triggered?

Under Section 1. of the Recall of MPs Act (2015), a recall vote can only be triggered if an MP is

1. Sentenced to a custodial sentence, included suspended sentences
2. Suspended from the House of Commons for ten sitting days or 14 calendar days
3. Convicted of providing false or misleading expenses claims

It cannot be done at any old time. We would be having constant recalls and by-elections otherwise.

 

[Silvanus]

It is clear that high-ranking politicians have a habit of taking important documents home to work on them there, and occasionally mislaying them (that's of course a bad thing). The achives then check for anything missing when they leave office and send them a notice to return them. As long as the archives apparently get almost everything sufficiently important back, case closed. Maybe they are prepared to write off a handful as lost.

But we have issues of scale and attitude here. Biden and Pence have had documents found, but they also co-operated fully and only had maybe up to a dozen. This is the realm of accidental error. Trump however had hundreds, if not thousands, and his response to returning them was very clearly somewhere between lacking diligence and deliberate obstruction such that a huge number remained. We might note that someone in his team shopped him to the FBI, and I think his lawyers were really cagey about one of the sign-offs that he'd complied with the archives, implying they knew something might be wrong. If he'd only just complied properly like everyone else, there wouldn't be a whiff of a story here. But that's Trump: he cannot help but self-sabotage with his narcissistic compulsions.

Then what happens is that to protect their own, people run round with "No you" accusations, even when they are barely a fraction as serious. And so we have a vast amount of rooting around of other politicians. I don't mind this, per se. I do however object to equating Trump with Biden and Pence, because it's like equating someone who embezzled $10,000 from his company to two guys who accidentally went home with a few pens from the company stationery cupboard.

I think Gorfias is referring to Biden's history of embellishing/fabricating elements of his family's past, rather than the documents thing. Just off the top of my head, he said his ancestors were coal miners, which isn't true. There are several others.

It got overshadowed because his opponent lied bigger, and more often, and more outrageously and obviously.

 

[Ag3ma]

I think Gorfias is referring to Biden's history of embellishing/fabricating elements of his family's past, rather than the documents thing. Just off the top of my head, he said his ancestors were coal miners, which isn't true. There are several others.

Gorfias refers to the document scandal as a reason to back out of 2024, where the porkies he told back the 80s will not hold him back. And Biden's obviously got away with those untruths already.

From reading around, Biden did lie and exaggerate, but more at the lower end. He apparently did have at least one ancestor who worked in the coal industry (albeit not a miner), and he is not entirely wrong to say he was the first in his family to have a degree (on his father's side). He overstated some of his academic accomplishments, but nothing truly excruciating. I mean, he did at least have a degree (or does it count as two, as it was a double major?)

Santos meanwhile has falsely claimed: a Masters degree, bachelors degree, attendance at an elite school; being Jewish (in New York, where it's unusually relevant), a volleyball champion, model, journalist; he's grossly inflated his job role at every company he's ever worked in, and probably his most presitigious job was a regional sales manager of a Ponzi scheme where he was reportedly serially dishonest in encouraging investors. He's claimed to be a drag queen and then denied it, lied that his family were rich, where he's lived, how much he owns and earns, including refusals to verify key information and all manner of irregularities in disclosures where he has complied, has allegedly conned charity, committed check fraud in Brazil...

Again, not to excuse Biden, but it is not necessarily useful to equate modest CV padding with a serial fantasist and potential fraudster.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I watched Bill Maher's New Rules from last Friday. The dude is off the deep end with whataboutisms. His take on Santos? Its the liberals and Democrats fault. Damned Woke kids just wanting woke politics.

You very much selectively paid attention to only like 10 seconds or so. All he did was say Santos just said what both tribes like to hear and that was it. Don't know how that got Chinese telephoned into it being the liberals fault.

 

[Trunkage]

Beep boop does not compute!

The GOP is doing some stupid stuff. Chipping away at Social Security, trying to ban abortions, destroying the IRS and school system, letting infrastructure die even dams etc

Santos has done nothing for.
or against these things. Thus he isnt really to blame. He does have his own personal stuff that he can be blamed for

See also Tories etc who voted against Brexit. They tried to get their party to see reason but the fever was high. They shouldn't be blamed for their party's mistakes. But you can probably find some personal mistakes still

 

[Baffle]

The GOP is doing some stupid stuff. Chipping away at Social Security, trying to ban abortions, destroying the IRS and school system, letting infrastructure die even dams etc

Santos has done nothing for.
or against these things. Thus he isnt really to blame. He does have his own personal stuff that he can be blamed for

See also Tories etc who voted against Brexit. They tried to get their party to see reason but the fever was high. They shouldn't be blamed for their party's mistakes. But you can probably find some personal mistakes still

Ah sorry, I didn't mean I didn't understand it, I meant I don't believe there are any MPs who haven't personally done anything wrong (that's not quite true, I just think the MP that isn't really in it for themselves is a much rarer thing than it should be).

On Tories: there are no good Tories. The 'good Tories' we spent years hearing about (that is, the anti-Brexit ones) were perfectly happy with 10 years of austerity, and the people holding up those good Tories (the people who like to consider themselves 'the adults in the room') were happy with them too. Brexit may have been the stupidest thing the Tories have done, but it's not actually the nastiest.

 

[Trunkage]

Ah sorry, I didn't mean I didn't understand it, I meant I don't believe there are any MPs who haven't personally done anything wrong (that's not quite true, I just think the MP that isn't really in it for themselves is a much rarer thing than it should be).

On Tories: there are no good Tories. The 'good Tories' we spent years hearing about (that is, the anti-Brexit ones) were perfectly happy with 10 years of austerity, and the people holding up those good Tories (the people who like to consider themselves 'the adults in the room') were happy with them too. Brexit may have been the stupidest thing the Tories have done, but it's not actually the nastiest.

Well, I wouldn't call them a good Tory. Unfortunately, with Tories, the good only comes in being against Brexit. Even bad policy makers can have a reasonable stance every now and then