Republican House decides not to expel George Santos

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 40
#31
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,284
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
You made the claim.... are you now implying it's a troll claim that the party  stands for law and order... 
No, I'm implying that it's stupid to pretend that 10-15% of house democrats voting against Santos's expulsion counters the claim that the democratic party believes in law and order, especially given that my point went beyond members of congress.
#32
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,044
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
I never said that. I said those 30 are not part of the party of law and order, and should be removed from the party of law and order.

If you are going to make a purity test for your political party, then those are the consequences.
#33
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,152
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Do you think Trump will pick Santos as his VP?
#34
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,104
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@FLRW
Kristi Noem

Edit: Oh, I mistakenly thought you were misspelling DeSantis in your question, but I see now it was just your usual antics. Carry on…
#35
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,284
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
If you are going to make a purity test for your political party, then those are the consequences.
It wasn't a purity test, it was a macro analysis. Do you understand the difference between those two things?
#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,044
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
A macro analysis that says your party is MOSTLY for law and order? (minus 30 Democrats)

Okay, that is also good to know.
#37
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,284
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
A macro analysis that says your party is MOSTLY for law and order? (minus 30 Democrats)
Political parties are made of people. People have all kinds of differing opinions. Therefore, no political party will be in 100% agreement.

This is basic human nature, I don't know why you need it explained to you.


#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,044
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
it's clear which set of voters care about basic things like integrity, honesty, and the rule of law.
No, I was just demonstrating that constructing a Macro analysis based off of a single nuanced individual case leads to ridiculous conclusions, where  your party is either "Mostly" for law and order and sometimes the entire party is corrupt, or it "IS" the party of law and order and 30 people are not really part of that political party.

That kind of hyperbolic and overly simplistic analysis is what causes the foundations of public mistrust, because the world does not deal in those kinds of hyperbolic absolutes.

For someone who purports to have a grasp on human nature, I find this exchange very revealing. You can't base an entire political party's full set of values on the basis of the outcome of one individual instance and expect the public to inhale that gaslight. It's like making a poll with a survey size of one.  This case isn't representative of anything but one nuanced case.

What you did was indeed define a purity test for your party by labeling your party "for law and order" solely on the basis of this one particular vote. A test that 30 Democrats failed under your "analysis"
#39
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,284
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
You can't base an entire political party's full set of values on the basis of the outcome of one individual instance
I didn't. The analysis I offered was of one example of one value.

This case isn't representative of anything but one nuanced case.
This case is entirely representative of everything we have been seeing in our politics for over a decade now. That's the point.

What you did was indeed define a purity test for your party by labeling your party "for law and order" solely on the basis of this one particular vote. A test that 30 Democrats failed under your "analysis"
The strawmanning continues.

Assessing what a political party believes isn't a purity test, it's an assessment. Moreover, if you had bothered to read and absorb anything I wrote perhaps you would have recognized that I went so far as to zoom out and focus not on the individual members of Congress but their voters, so the fact that you keep pointing to the individual members of Congress is further confirmation that you do not read.

The point was that when we zoom out and recognize a very clear partisan split in a situation where the political implications of their vote would figure to be even more of a factor than usual, that gives us a clearer window into the mindset of each constituency than most examples.

Every single critique you have offered is of an argument I never made. Pay attention.
#40
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,044
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
This case is entirely representative of everything we have been seeing in our politics for over a decade now.
Thank you for proving my point.