Santos admits he lied about everything...still won't step down from office.

[GMDino]

(01-05-2023, 11:42 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Well just from that article, you can tell that the author is comparing apples to oranges. The examples they gave just don't line up with Santos.

Elizabeth Warren's claim that she was part Native American was based on something her family has been telling each other and their children for many years. When something is passed down from generation to generation, it becomes harder to verify and I think it's very reasonable that she truly believed she was of Native American ancestry and her willingness to take a test and reveal the results on the internet are evidence of her heartfelt belief, in my opinion. It does seem like her family either lied or embellished, but that isn't necessarily a reflection on her truthfulness.

Biden stating his son died in Iraq is an inaccuracy perhaps but I don't think it reaches the same level as deception. I don't personally know how Beau got Brain cancer. There's a chance that Biden blames Beau's service for some reason. There are reports of burn pits causing brain damage to soldiers as late as a hand full of years ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if Beau's diagnosis was tied in some way to his time spent in Iraq. Now that I check, that is exactly what Joe believes, if you believe Wikipedia:

So, if this was the case, Biden saying his son died in Iraq is essentially true, if not for the single phase "Where my son died." Obviously his son didn't physically die in Iraq, but if he got the cancer from the burn pits in Iraq, then he certainly could attribute Beau's death to his service time in Iraq. 

The next example was Biden saying the crash that caused his wife's death was related to alcohol. Again, I don't know exactly what happened on that day; I doubt anyone alive can other than the driver, who would never admit to it. The deaths were ruled an accident caused by Neilia pulling out in front of the tractor trailer. The investigation yielded no evidence that alcohol was involved but that just means it couldn't be proven. There's a chance Biden knows something that didn't make the report due to lack of ability to prove it, but it is also possible that he is just a grieving widower who is looking for someone to blame. It makes sense that he would resent and blame, even irrationally or without merit,  the person who killed his wife and child even if they technically did nothing wrong. 

So those are the three examples that this author gives explicit details about as equivocation in their article and all three of them are either disingenuously spun to make the Democrat look bad or are otherwise nowhere near the degree of outright lying that Santos had engaged in.

The author goes on to list a few more abbreviated examples. Biden's arrest in South Africa, lying about his law school ranking, dishonesty about academic credentials etc.  It would be difficult to fact check each and every one of these short quips for accuracy but given the author's established pattern of stretching the truth in the 3 explicit examples, I'm not inclined to believe they are being honest about any of these examples.

Like everything, lying has levels. If you say you were arrested when you were actually just detained in an airport, that's a lie and you should be called out for that, which Biden was. When virtually every single thing on your resume that you used to pitch yourself as a good candidate for public office turns out to be a fabrication, that is a higher level of lie, which should be met with a higher level of outcry (in this case, not seating Santos).

I think most people expect a certain amount of lying and embellishment from politicians. It's their job to sell themselves as the best person for the job they're running for, so they'll say they got better grades than they did, were more valorous than they were or were more compassionate or forward thinking than they actually were. Those are kind of expected in today's politics. Lies that you could realistically believe the person at least convinced themselves were true and/or are somewhat harmless or subjective.

A person just making up a history and saying that they did things they categorically did not do is much different, in my opinion, and if a Democrat did similar things I guarantee you that the voters and the leaders in the party would hold them accountable. The Democrats have a long track record of self policing their ranks. From Weiner's dick pics. to Katie Hill's leaked nude photos and inappropriate staffer relationships to Al Franken's pretending to fondle a sleeping woman, Democrats are very sensitive (some may say overly sensitive, honestly) to public outcry (also known as "cancelling") and will often purge their ranks if a person becomes untenable in the public's eyes.

All we ask is that the Republicans do the same.

Biden was caught in multiple lies/enhancements when running for President the first time in 1988.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/that-time-joe-biden-lied-about-his-academic-credentials/

And plagiarizing.

https://time.com/5636715/biden-1988-presidential-campaign/

So he dropped out of the race.

To me the biggest difference is that Santos lied about absolutely everything on his resume and about his personal life and not only won, but the republican party will swear him in as if nothing ever happened.