If it helps, I cared about Joe Biden and plagiarism and dishonesty in 1988.
That was 30 years ago. I believe his conduct in the intervening time makes his 1987-88 campaign for president fairly moot.
If, in 30 years, Whitaker has led a life of public service and worked hard for causes that I believe are important, my opinion of him and the importance of his lying on a resume will have evolved as well.
Because that’s a thing that people do.
You cannot consider them both in a vacuum.
If you have someone who, throughout their long life in public service, has had little in the way of similar issues, then it is more easily to give them a mulligan on it.
On the other hand, you have someone who is no stranger to controversy in their much shorter history then this is something that gets tossed on the pile of “bad-doings” rather than tossed out.
There sure is a powerful stench of whataboutism on the air tonight.
It’s as if you can’t just Google “Kasich Lie” and get a whole bunch of stories that Timex will I’m sure feel aren’t true or are fine with him.
Do you understand that this all started because people were saying that Whitaker must step down, because he lied about a trivial aspect of his college education?
I mean, I’m not a Whittaker supporter. But it strikes me as hypercritical that those people didn’t care about more severe lies about Biden’s education.
You can say that you don’t care about either of those things… that’s a consistent position.
You can say that some lies are more severe than others, and that minor ones wouldn’t matter, but severe ones would… That’s a consistent position too.
But here, we have a lie about a pretty trivial thing (whether he was an all American in college), and that is being regarded as more disqualifying than a much more absurd set of lies (like lying about how many degrees you earned).
Clearly, no one here cares about Biden’s history of dishonesty. And that’s fine.
But then the question becomes why they care about this one tiny lie by Whitaker.
To me, there are numerous reasons to think Whitaker should go. But this isn’t one of them.
On balance, I agree with this. Love to see him gone, but I don’t think this is the compelling reason.
Well yes you can. If they are both perfect spheres.
He’s running
It’ll be interesting to see how he actually votes, although it’s hard to imagine him being less of a sycophant than hatch was.
That OpEd piece is definitely a direct attack on Trump though. He pulls no punches. Trump is certain to freak out and go to war against Romney in retaliation.
He was right to align U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors, to strip out excessive regulations, to crack down on China’s unfair trade practices, to reform criminal justice and to appoint conservative judges. These are policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years. But policies and appointments are only a part of a presidency.
I don’t actually dislike anything he’s really done here at home, and since I have two binders full of women now and don’t really have to be afraid about talking about dismissing a chunk of the people because they’ll never vote for me, I am now ready to stand on lip service principal and focus on things abroad because I’m just fine with everything right here.
He had his chance, and he’s pushing the same crap.
But where would Utah find another rich old white man with a shitty agenda to fill that Senate seat if Romney somehow wins?
Yup, he’s the new Jeff Flake.
You don’t need to believe he’s good, but you should applaud a republican writing an OpEd in a national paper, specifically attacking Trump.
You don’t need to give him credit for anything beyond that. You never need to vote for him. You can still hate him.
But give him credit for doing a good thing. Attacking Trump is a good thing.
Attacking him by applauding his domestic legislative agenda. Again, Trump is a Republican, who stands for what Republicans stand for. He’s just a rude one, and that rubs Mitt the wrong way. Sorry, but I don’t think the solution is polite versions of Trump.
I don’t hate him. I don’t wish any bodily harm to Romney. I am also not going to applaud him. He approves of what Trump is doing which means he gets no credit for attacking Trump. It’s just lip service. He doesn’t really disapprove of what Trump is doing so much as the way POTUS is conveying the message.
Yes, this.
No, he approves of SOME of what has happened under Trump… A tax policy pushed by the Republicans.
And you don’t need to agree with him on that.
But you and he agree that Trump is an immoral piece of shit. It doesn’t hurt you to applaud someone agreeing with you on something. It costs you NOTHING to do so.
Applaud behavior you want to see more of. It doesn’t imply you are applauding any of his other behavior.
Applaud that he makes the trains run on time.
