On Function, Ethic, and Politics

[Tiassa]

And Then This Happened

​

There's an image of a prostitute offering the driver of an old car, and while it's not unfamiliar, it's also true I don't see it much.

That's the backstory for a particularly sordid episode; per Talking Points Memo:

Less than two weeks after speaking at a conference organized by white nationalist Nick Fuentes, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) tweeted a meme on Monday that referenced Fuentes' battle cry.

The meme shows a man telling a prostitute to "tell everyone America first is inevitable."

"#AmericaFirst," Gosar tweeted with the image.

"America first is inevitable" is Fuentes' slogan, which he invoked during a speech at a far-right event last year and in a tweet that included a photo of him and Gosar together at his America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC) in February ....

(Cabrera↱)​

A report from HuffPost includes a particular point:

Gosar's office did not respond to a HuffPost request for comment on why he felt compelled to post the white nationalist group's slogan ― especially since immediately after his controversial speech to the organization, he made a somewhat half-hearted effort to distance himself from it.

Fuentes—a 22-year-old Holocaust denier who attended the deadly 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia—invited Gosar to speak at the group's second annual conference on Feb. 26 in Orlando, Florida.

Gosar delivered a nearly 20-minute speech to the assembled group of young white nationalists before Fuentes took the stage himself, declaring that "white people are done being bullied" and that America needs to protect its "white demographic core."

The next day, Fuentes posted a photo to Twitter—where he has a verified account with over 120,000 followers—showing him and Gosar having coffee together.

"Great meeting today with Congressman Gosar," tweeted Fuentes. "America is truly uncancelled."

(Mathias↱)​

A couple of things, there: First, it really was an awkward denunciation↑; but there is also the question of cancellation, as if refusal of white supremacism somehow suppresses the nation.

Still, though, inasmuch as there might be any questions of cancellation, Steve Benen↱ observes:

There is an existing blueprint for situations like these. In 2018, the Trump White House fired a speechwriter after officials learned he spoke at a conference attended by well-known white nationalists. Soon after, a Department of Homeland Security policy analyst resigned after his connections to white-nationalist activists was exposed.

What's more, two years ago, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) expressed disgust with then-Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), stripped him of his committee assignments, rendered him irrelevant, and watched the Iowan's career evaporate soon after. (King, incidentally, also spoke at Fuentes' gathering.)

GOP officials could treat Gosar the exact same way. At least for now, they don't want to.​

It's like a weird canard from when Trump was elected, that we shouldn't dismiss the views of people who voted for him as obviously crazy, or motivated by racism or sexism or any of those other bad things. I mean, sure, there were always those just greedy to the point of bloodlust, which is a traditional American virtue of some sort, but still, given Trump's approval ratings among Republicans over the period, and what the GOP has to offer in the wake of his presidency, we might also consider a question of function and cancellation. Conservatives have long objected to being held accountable for their words, actions, and decisions; moreover, they don't feel their investment in traditional injustice is something to be held accountable for. That "blueprint" Benen describes is not something conservatives actually like or approve of; it's a ritual hoop they must leap through if they intend that this isn't about tinfoil conspiracism and supremacist crackpottery, and they very much resent the obligation.

Historical ironies, sickly and semiprecious gems of dysfunctional demographic cores, suicide pact sociality, and codependent antisociality, abound.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Pressing his luck, GOP's Gosar tweets white nationalist's motto". msnbc. 9 March 2021. msnbc.com. 9 March 2021. http://on.msnbc.com/3cih67j

Cabrera, Cristina. "Gosar Tweets White Nationalist's Motto After Speaking At Same White Nationalist's Event". Talking Points Memo. 9 March 2021. TalkingPointsMemo.com. 9 March 2021. http://bit.ly/3kZGiUd

Mathias, Christopher. "Rep. Paul Gosar Tweets White Nationalist Group's Motto". HuffPost. 8 March 2021. HuffPost.com. 9 March 2021. http://bit.ly/3es5tNU

 

[Vociferous]

Sorry, I got distracted by a coffeepot while arguing with myself whether to use the link to the law schol archive of the U.S. Code, or the one from the House of Representatives that will eventually break for procedural reasons.

For five whole days? No criticism. The silence spoke volumes, all on its own

Let us consider the range of your question: "Where in the actual House Resolution for proxy voting …?" This is actually a fallacious proposition; 18 USC 47, § 1001(c)(1)↱ applies.

18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.​

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.​

Seriously, how did you not know it's a crime to lie to the government in formal and affecting communications? Why would you think the lack of a particular clause in authorizing resolution would exempt the rule from laws against lying to the government?

So that would be a resounding "no". There is zero requirement in the HR965 for any reason or excuse to use a proxy to vote. That may sound like a quibble to you, but it is very germane.

What you completely fail to account for, or perhaps even understand, is the definition of "material fact". You see, 18 U.S. Code § 1001 only applies to material facts:

A material fact is a fact that a reasonable person would recognize as germane to a decision to be made, as distinguished from an insignificant, trivial, or unimportant detail. In other words, it is a fact, the suppression of which would reasonably result in a different decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_fact

A statement is material if it has a natural tendency to influence or to be capable of influencing the decision of the decisionmaker to which it was addressed, regardless of whether the agency actually relied upon it. https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/resources/pattern2003/html/patt6oxl.htm​

As HR965 has no requirements nor means of deciding whether to accept or deny a voting proxy, the reason given is not material, because it cannot influence, even in principle, any decision. That makes 18 U.S. Code § 1001 an irrelevant tangent, at best. But I assume everyone will cut you a break for not understanding such legal terminology.

It's problematic to describe as "complete conflation"↑ an argument asserting differences↑ between the elements described as conflated.

"inasmuch as ... the other does not preclude the one" doesn't actually acknowledge any difference. That would require acknowledging that one could preclude the other.
And you might not want to link to the report button for your own posts, unless you're intentionally trying to obscure what you're citing.

What in the world would make you think the lack of a particular clause in authorizing resolution would exempt the rule from laws against lying to the government? It's not like 18 USC 47 § 1001 just magically poofed into existence ex nihilo in the time since you said that.

In a world where some of us, anyway, understand legal concepts like "material fact". Again, no one expects you to be versed on legal terms. Although a bit less arrogance on subjects in which you've demonstrated holes in your knowledge might be wise. But I guess you don't really feel the need to scrutinize your own understanding when you can just attribute, unjustified, magical thinking to anyone who disagrees with you.

Still, a reminder, since you passed over↑ last time↑: At no point does the fact that something is art actually change what it is. Thus, falsely attesting in a formal government document might well be intended as some manner of performance—e.g., mockery—but it is still an official act of lying.

Read 18 USC 47 § 1001 again, and this time, try really hard to comprehend it. Like your conflation of a lie and mockery, you also need to learn that there's a difference between a lie and a materially false statement. Immaterial lies are not covered by 18 USC 47 § 1001, nor are they illegal or actionable.

As to the question of ethic, it's pretty simple: That we need to pretend an act undertaken as mockery is not the act undertaken says everything we need to know about the low ethic that would justify such behavior.

As long as you insist on conflating immaterial mockery to a legally actionable materially false statement, it's pretty clear that your ethical and intellectual honesty is in doubt.
I have no doubt that you will find another irrelevant tangent to again try to weasel you way out of having to retract this bit of motivated demonization, so don't let me down.

 

[Tiassa]

For five whole days? No criticism. The silence spoke volumes, all on its own

No, it's just that coffee is coffee, life goes on, and—

As long as you insist on conflating immaterial mockery to a legally actionable materially false statement, it's pretty clear that your ethical and intellectual honesty is in doubt.
I have no doubt that you will find another irrelevant tangent to again try to weasel you way out of having to retract this bit of motivated demonization, so don't let me down.

—you're forgettable.

Meanwhile, your argument tells us what we need to know about the low ethic that would justify such behavior. Your argument is not somehow mysterious; it's just demonstrative of an ethic low enough to suit conservative need.

 

[Vociferous]

Meanwhile, your argument tells us what we need to know about the low ethic that would justify such behavior. Your argument is not somehow mysterious; it's just demonstrative of an ethic low enough to suit conservative need.

Wow, so you just skipped right over my complete refute of your central point, illustrative as it was of your ignorance of legal terminology, didn't even both with any further argument or reasoning, and just ran with a complete bare assertion that only serves your original and unsupported motivated reasoning.

Pfft!

 

[Vociferous]

Like I said, your silence speaks volumes. Your OPs might as well be blog posts↑ for all the intent you have to justify your position. When you're shown to be wrong, because you don't understand pretty basic legal terms, you just clam up, because you lack the intellectual honesty to admit even a simple mistake.

 

[Vociferous]

As I suspected, Tiassa doesn't have sufficient personal ethics to admit a simple mistake, while hypocritically questioning the ethics of others. Just goes to show that leftist very often project their own behavior on others.

 

[Tiassa]

As I suspected, Tiassa doesn't have sufficient personal ethics to admit a simple mistake, while hypocritically questioning the ethics of others. Just goes to show that leftist very often project their own behavior on others.

Vociferous, it's nobody else's fault if you're not smart enough to figure out this basic point: The justification you offer is what it is. That it describes low ethic and intellect alike is what it is. The fact of mockery, for instance, does not make a false statement true; nobody should need to remind you. The desire to mock does not inherently license lying; one might be making false statents in order to mock another, but that does not change the fact of making false statements.

That your ethic encourages such behavior is what it is. That your ethic is so ignorant is also an apparent fact of life.

Yes, we get it: Dishonest ignorance is what it takes to justify the conservative ethic.

That's actually part of the point of this thread.

Thanks for making such an anxious effort these recent weeks; you really came through to show us what we needed to see. After all, white supremacism is worth lying for; and some conservatives even find it worth reformulating ethics and language alike. It's not like people aren't aware of this, but having a conservative so eagerly affirming, reminding, and celebrating

Look, it's one thing if I have this or that to say about conservatives, their excremental morals, and shitty post-relativist pretense of ethics, but only a conservative to step up to so eagerly make the point for everyone to see.

 

[Vociferous]

As I suspected, Tiassa doesn't have sufficient personal ethics to admit a simple mistake, while hypocritically questioning the ethics of others. Just goes to show that leftist very often project their own behavior on others.

Vociferous, it's nobody else's fault if you're not smart enough to figure out this basic point: The justification you offer is what it is. That it describes low ethic and intellect alike is what it is. The fact of mockery, for instance, does not make a false statement true; nobody should need to remind you. The desire to mock does not inherently license lying; one might be making false statents in order to mock another, but that does not change the fact of making false statements.

That your ethic encourages such behavior is what it is. That your ethic is so ignorant is also an apparent fact of life.

Yes, we get it: Dishonest ignorance is what it takes to justify the conservative ethic.

That's actually part of the point of this thread.

Thanks for making such an anxious effort these recent weeks; you really came through to show us what we needed to see. After all, white supremacism is worth lying for; and some conservatives even find it worth reformulating ethics and language alike. It's not like people aren't aware of this, but having a conservative so eagerly affirming, reminding, and celebrating

Look, it's one thing if I have this or that to say about conservatives, their excremental morals, and shitty post-relativist pretense of ethics, but only a conservative to step up to so eagerly make the point for everyone to see.

Thanks for so readily proving my point, that leftists project their own behavior on others, here projecting your own low ethic and intellect. To be fair, it may only be one rather than both, but the fact that you're projecting both, with zero substantiation other that your usual unsupported opinion, indicates it's likely both. Either you actually can't comprehend the difference between a "false statement" (white lie) and a "materially false statement" (relevant to an outcome), or you're intentionally equivocating the two to knowingly make a false accusation of low ethics, which would also make you a hypocrite. And there's always the possibility that you both can't understand the difference and you're far too intellectually dishonest to even try to comprehend something so simple.

Real people make false statements all the time with zero ethical implications. "How are you?" "Fine." "How do I look?" "Good."
As already pointed out to you, H.R. 965 doesn't require any reason for the proxy vote at all. And we know this because, when I told you, you ran off to find 18 U.S. Code § 1001. As I previously tried to educate you, there's a difference, both legally and ethically, between a false statement (white lie) and a materially false statement. These are facts that support everything I've said. We have nothing but your own bare assertions (opinions) for your claims.

That you feel the need to conflate my argument about H.R. 965 with the completely irrelevant behavior of Fuentes just further proves the lengths to which you will go to dishonesty impugn others. And with that Godwin's law by proxy and extremely strained guilt by association, you've demonstrated you have no substantial or intellectually honest argument.

No doubt, you'll continue to be just as unable to comprehend this simple English as you've been throughout this thread. Your filter of motivated reasoning is far to dense.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

conservative ethic

there are different types of conservatives
it appears they tend toward 2 different class financial levels
wanna be rich lower middle class
middle & upper class

the American conservative is a religious socialist with control & compliance obsessions
or a rich upper class person obsessed with keeping class systems as they are and labels themself a conservative in hopes of conserving the class system & assigning themself as being obedient to upper class social rules.

the cool-aid the American working class bought faster than coke was the false premise of cultural preservation as a personal position of power to hold back taxation & urban sprawl of lower class & multi-culturalism.

its a sad travesty when you compare self labelled American working class conservatives with British conservative liberals
both label themselves conservative bu the American is a contorted xenophobic socialist obsessed with social compliance & social obedience.

cold war brainwashed babies

thats why they love hitler so much

they covet socialist obedience as a form of social compliance to their own machinations of power as a dictator but want the social grouping to emotionally support their ego because their ego is a broken child
however, in a Freudian hate fest of sexual perversion of the little boy hating its authoritative mothers social liberalism they target their self loathing at women.

so some of them label themselves liberals because they want all the power to do anything they like, while everyone else must obey their socialist dogma dictatorship.

they want all the power, and they want everyone else to be accountable for being hurt by that power when ever they choose to use it,
victim blaming/shaming sexual & gender forced stereo types(sexism, racism, bullying & self victimization as a defense against being accused of abuse to be rendered the winner & thus being non accountable)
gun obsessions(2nd amendment crack-pots)

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Godwin's law by proxy

your talking about WWII, Vietnam & Korea & Iraq War Veterans here.
interesting personal belief & values system you have

or did you mean the USA cold war era in general and its obsession with socialism Nazis & communists ?

Gated communities all demanding everyone be a communist and have their houses & social behavior all the same then calling themselves republicans ...

what law is that called ?

cold war nuclear baby gestapo law ?
Republican nuclear baby syndrome law ?
Goebbels Republican infantalism law ?
Republican nuclear socialist law ?

why do American republicans aspire to live in a gated community ?
because the society they have created is soo violent and lacks empathy for each other.

modern day target & other department store shopping
gated family internment goes consumer choice ...

https://undercaws.com/2012/04/02/triolet-expose-u-s-concentration-camps/
above picture usa

Japanese Americans line up in a row
relocated to desolate spaces.
Stripped of life where families grow
Japanese Americans line up in a row,
a homegrown “work camp” show.
Pearl Harbor grows enemy faces
Japanese Americans line up in a row
relocated to desolate spaces.

Brenda Warren 2012
https://undercaws.com/2012/04/02/triolet-expose-u-s-concentration-camps/

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Gosar

Sep 23, 2018, 9:09 AM
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...lings-democratic-campaign-ad-2018-9?r=US&IR=T

• Arizona Republican Paul Gosar has accused his six siblings of being “disgruntled Hillary supporters” after they released a campaign ad endorsing Gosar’s Democratic opponent.
• In the ad, the siblings criticised their brother’s views on issues like health care and immigration, and argued that Paul Gosar doesn’t have Arizonans’ interests at heart.
• Paul Gosar tweeted Saturday that he’s “Mum’s favourite,” after The New York Times reported that his mother was “shocked” and “crushed” to learn of the campaign ad.
• “To the six angry Democrat Gosars – see you at Mum and Dad’s house!” Paul Gosar tweeted.

i worked for a guy who is a lot like Gosar many years ago.

fact is most people butter their bread on both sides

it is only a small fraction of modern multi-cultural society that is not inherently racist by self identification & core principal value association.
humans are tribal creatures
you cant just remove that biological imperative by seeking to exploit globalism as a form of consumerism to kiss the ass of corporate profit dogma.

we can create flash cards to show easy definitions
Chinese
Indians
Muslims

all 3 tend to have their own policy toward social culture norms
and all of them have fairly obvious rules around who should marry who etc

judain christian secularism as a function of multi-culturalism is a very new human concept

social & economic closed cells define a sense of self justifying xenophobia design of ideological culture dogma

which makes it quite fascinating to see the alt-right xenophobic group target globalism as an enemy to their supposed liberalism.

globalism is the function of corporate digital currency as a mechanism of urbanized unsustainable non self reliant human society.
so the same xenophobia group needs the globalism to continue expanding its consumer base to shift the un-sustainable margin off to a new culture to continue the system.
but as they do it
they self define as absolute groups to self determine

 

[Tiassa]

As already pointed out to you, H.R. 965 doesn't require any reason for the proxy vote at all. And we know this because, when I told you, you ran off to find 18 U.S. Code § 1001.

I asked you↗ why you would think the lack of a particular clause in authorizing resolution would exempt the rule from laws against lying to the government, and you actually have yet to answer that.

As I previously tried to educate you, there's a difference, both legally and ethically, between a false statement (white lie) and a materially false statement.

There is a difference between a so-called "white lie", defined as, "a lie about a small or unimportant matter that someone tells to avoid hurting another person" (Merriam-Webster↱), and filing a false statement with the House Clerk as a matter of mockery.

And what you present is an intellect incapable of discerning such basic differences, and a low ethic so utterly dependent on that gutter ignorance.

Laws and law enforcement, reportage and commentary, fallacy names, s-apostrophe; sometimes↗, it's better↗ to be forgettable↑. Besides, what would we add, to the list, dictionary definitions? That's far too general, compared to your record. Neither is your failure to grasp basic civics anything new, but, sure, to be clear: The lack of a particular clause in an authorizing resolution would not exempt a rule from laws against lying to the government.

The weirdest thing is that it's already acknowledged↑ that what happens in Congress generally stays in Congress, and thus it is unlikely the offending members will face any serious consequences, yet you have gone out of your way to make a point of showing us a particularly low iteration of conservative ethic.

That you feel the need to conflate my argument about H.R. 965 with the completely irrelevant behavior of Fuentes just further proves the lengths to which you will go to dishonesty impugn others. And with that Godwin's law by proxy and extremely strained guilt by association, you've demonstrated you have no substantial or intellectually honest argument.

Is the problem that it's simply unfair to expect a conservative to make sense?
____________________

Notes:

"white lie". Merriam-Webster. 2021. Merriam-Webster.com. 22 March 2021. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white lie

 

[Vociferous]

As already pointed out to you, H.R. 965 doesn't require any reason for the proxy vote at all. And we know this because, when I told you, you ran off to find 18 U.S. Code § 1001.

I asked you↗ why you would think the lack of a particular clause in authorizing resolution would exempt the rule from laws against lying to the government, and you actually have yet to answer that.

And I already told you↑ that 18 U.S. Code § 1001 only pertains to "material facts", which, as you've yet to grasp, are facts that could possibly influence a decision. HR 965 doesn't subject proxy votes to any decision for when they can be used, hence any reason given for using one is not material and thus not subject to 18 U.S. Code § 1001. So yes, I clearly did answer that, but your motivated reasoning is preventing you from either reading or remembering plain English posted in direct response to your question. Seriously, go reread the linked post↑ and see if you can muster the barest intellectual honesty to at least admit you missed my clear answer to you question.

As I previously tried to educate you, there's a difference, both legally and ethically, between a false statement (white lie) and a materially false statement.

There is a difference between a so-called "white lie", defined as, "a lie about a small or unimportant matter that someone tells to avoid hurting another person" (Merriam-Webster↱), and filing a false statement with the House Clerk as a matter of mockery.

A white lie is "harmless or trivial"↗. That's literally the opposite of a "materially false statement" (you know, as in 18 U.S. Code § 1001), which has to be relevant to a decision↑. When you act as if "filing a false statement with the House Clerk" is a "materially false statement", you are either intentionally equivocating or, at this point, it appears you are functionally incapable of learning actual definitions and how they apply, as matters of law and ethics. Unless or until you can manage to demonstrate your comprehension of this very simple difference, I'm afraid you're only making a fool of yourself. And there's only so much I can educate the willfully ignorant.

And what you present is an intellect incapable of discerning such basic differences, and a low ethic so utterly dependent on that gutter ignorance.

As per the above, you're obviously projecting. You're conflating "false statement" with "materially false statement" when, in fact, your example of a "false statement" is much more akin to "white lie", both legally and ethically. I'll give you one more chance to save face. What does "material fact" mean?

Laws and law enforcement, reportage and commentary, fallacy names, s-apostrophe; sometimes↗, it's better↗ to be forgettable↑.

Wow, I'm really living rent free in your head, even after several months-long absences, the last being six months long.
But thanks for rehashing those examples. Most of them demonstrate the same willful or naive conflation you're displaying here. No wonder they so readily sprung to your mind. Yes, just like there is a difference between a "false statement" and a "materially false statement" (remember, you're the one you brought up 18 U.S. Code § 1001↑), there are differences between law and law enforcement as well as journalism and commentary.

That you feel the need to rehash irrelevant stuff tells me that you can't actually support your nonsense. This is a common pattern with you. Laughably, it also seems you're keeping a running list of your own ignorant conflations/equivocations and desperately trying to reframe your ignorance as victories months and years later. Good luck with that. If you really want to rehash the past, I will happily thrash you again.

Besides, what would we add, to the list, dictionary definitions? That's far too general, compared to your record. Neither is your failure to grasp basic civics anything new, but, sure, to be clear: The lack of a particular clause in an authorizing resolution would not exempt a rule from laws against lying to the government.

Yes, I gave you the legal definition of "material fact" above↑. You have yet to demonstrate the slightest grasp of that concept. So unless of until you can manage to comprehend the legal definition central to your claims about "laws against lying to the government", you're just making ignorant noises.

The weirdest thing is that it's already acknowledged↑ that what happens in Congress generally stays in Congress, and thus it is unlikely the offending members will face any serious consequences, yet you have gone out of your way to make a point of showing us a particularly low iteration of conservative ethic.

That's just you trying to backpedal, perhaps only vaguely aware that you're failure to grasp "material fact" undermines your entire premise.
But thanks for showing us the low ethics of a leftist, reeling from TDS and desperately seeking new targets for your deeply abiding hatreds, no matter how much you have to ignore legal definitions and conflate terms to justify your clearly motivated reasoning.

That you feel the need to conflate my argument about H.R. 965 with the completely irrelevant behavior of Fuentes just further proves the lengths to which you will go to dishonesty impugn others. And with that Godwin's law by proxy and extremely strained guilt by association, you've demonstrated you have no substantial or intellectually honest argument.

Is the problem that it's simply unfair to expect a conservative to make sense?

The problem is not my sense but your comprehension, as roundly detailed above.

 

[Vociferous]

As usual, Tiassa has no real comeback or refute of my points. He/she/it just keep making the exact same arguments from demonstrated ignorance, as well as the usual spate of dredging up years old debates he/she/it roundly lost (in an apparent and irrelevant genetic fallacy), conflating or equivocating relatively simple terms, and refusing to admit to even the simplest of mistakes. All this illustrates how Tiassa is the least credible person to be making any proclamations about ethics.

 

[Write4U]

The weirdest thing is that it's already acknowledged↑ that what happens in Congress generally stays in Congress, and thus it is unlikely the offending members will face any serious consequences, yet you have gone out of your way to make a point of showing us a particularly low iteration of conservative ethic

Moreover, the US Senate has become the US House of Lords, the entitled nobility who care only for remaining in power instead of serving the states and their residents they represent.

 

[exchemist]

Moreover, the US Senate has become the US House of Lords, the entitled nobility who care only for remaining in power instead of serving the states and their residents they represent.

...thus displaying total ignorance of what the House of Lords does...but that's to be expected, I suppose.

 

[Write4U]

...thus displaying total ignorance of what the House of Lords does...but that's to be expected, I suppose.

Why don't you tell us what the House of entitled Lords do that is very different from what the US Senate has become.

I got my info from this :

Membership was once an entitlement of all hereditary peers, other than those in the peerage of Ireland, but the House of Lords Act 1999 restricted it to 92 hereditary peers.[6] Since the resignation of the Countess of Mar in May 2020 (who had been the only female hereditary peer since 2014), none of these 92 is female. Most hereditary peerages can be inherited only by men

....

The House of Lords scrutinizes bills that have been approved by the House of Commons.[9] It regularly reviews and amends Bills from the Commons.[10] While it is unable to prevent Bills passing into law, except in certain limited circumstances,[11] it can delay Bills and force the Commons to reconsider their decisions.[12] In this capacity, the House of Lords acts as a check on the House of Commons that is independent from the electoral process.[13][14][15] Bills can be introduced into either the House of Lords or the House of Commons. While members of the Lords may also take on roles as government ministers, high-ranking officials such as cabinet ministers are usually drawn from the Commons. The House of Lords has its own support services, separate from the Commons, including the House of Lords Library.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

 

[Tiassa]

As per the above, you're obviously projecting. You're conflating "false statement" with "materially false statement" when, in fact, your example of a "false statement" is much more akin to "white lie", both legally and ethically. I'll give you one more chance to save face. What does "material fact" mean?

Yes, I gave you the legal definition of "material fact" above↑. You have yet to demonstrate the slightest grasp of that concept. So unless of until you can manage to comprehend the legal definition central to your claims about "laws against lying to the government", you're just making ignorant noises.

Let's take a look at what you said and linked:

A statement is material if it has a natural tendency to influence or to be capable of influencing the decision of the decisionmaker to which it was addressed, regardless of whether the agency actually relied upon it. [link]

You linked to a District Court in Massacusetts, and observed, from their resource page, that, "A statement is 'material' if it has a natural tendency to influence or to be capable of influencing the decision of the decisionmaker to which it was addressed, regardless of whether the agency actually relied upon it." And you have much to say on this point:

• "What you completely fail to account for, or perhaps even understand, is the definition of 'material fact' .... As HR965 has no requirements nor means of deciding whether to accept or deny a voting proxy, the reason given is not material, because it cannot influence, even in principle, any decision. That makes 18 U.S. Code § 1001 an irrelevant tangent, at best .... In a world where some of us, anyway, understand legal concepts like "material fact". Again, no one expects you to be versed on legal terms .... Read 18 USC 47 § 1001 again, and this time, try really hard to comprehend it .... Immaterial lies are not covered by 18 USC 47 § 1001, nor are they illegal or actionable." (#22↑)​

And that was just one post worth. You do go on:

• "Either you actually can't comprehend the difference between a 'false statement' (white lie) and a 'materially false statement' (relevant to an outcome), or you're intentionally equivocating the two to knowingly make a false accusation of low ethics, which would also make you a hypocrite .... As already pointed out to you, H.R. 965 doesn't require any reason for the proxy vote at all. And we know this because, when I told you, you ran off to find 18 U.S. Code § 1001. As I previously tried to educate you, there's a difference, both legally and ethically, between a false statement (white lie) and a materially false statement. These are facts that support everything I've said." (#28↑)​

I know I've already pointed out that you botched the definition of a white lie, but it's not irrelevant insofar as it makes a point for people about who and what they're dealing with, that you need to pretend what you describe as mockery somehow spares another's feelings. Toward questions of comprehension, the inability to discern such a basic difference is telling.

Still, you do go on:

• "And I already told you↑ that 18 U.S. Code § 1001 only pertains to 'material facts', which, as you've yet to grasp, are facts that could possibly influence a decision. HR 965 doesn't subject proxy votes to any decision for when they can be used, hence any reason given for using one is not material and thus not subject to 18 U.S. Code § 1001 .... A white lie is 'harmless or trivial'↱. That's literally the opposite of a "materially false statement" (you know, as in 18 U.S. Code § 1001), which has to be relevant to a decision↑. When you act as if 'filing a false statement with the House Clerk' is a 'materially false statement', you are either intentionally equivocating or, at this point, it appears you are functionally incapable of learning actual definitions and how they apply, as matters of law and ethics. As per the above, you're obviously projecting. You're conflating "false statement" with "materially false statement" when, in fact, your example of a "false statement" is much more akin to "white lie", both legally and ethically. I'll give you one more chance to save face. What does "material fact" mean? .... Yes, I gave you the legal definition of "material fact" above↑." (#33↑)​

And, yes, you did, in fact, link to a federal court along the way, citing a resource page that says, "A statement is 'material' if it has a natural tendency to influence or to be capable of influencing the decision of the decisionmaker to which it was addressed, regardless of whether the agency actually relied upon it." It also says something else, reminding from precedent that, "Materiality requires only that the fraud in question have a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of affecting or influencing, a governmental function. The alleged concealment or misrepresentation need not have influenced the actions of the Government agency, and the Government agents need not have been actually deceived." Moreover, "The government is not required to prove that the defendant had a purpose to mislead a federal agency … or that the statement was made for a fraudulent purpose."

Revisiting 18 USC 47 § 1001(c)(1) "With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch".

To the one, your entire reliance on the particular term "materially false" crumbles; to the other, it always did overlook other aspects, such as fictitious or fraudulent statements. This is straightforward: A false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement made in a document required by rule, pertaining to personnel or employment practices and administrative matters occurring within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch.

At the same time, inasmuch as we might look at this as a weirdly trivial reason to make a false statement in a federal personnel record required by rule, there remains the reason why: They lied in order to attend a political rally laden with white supremacism, and in at least one case explicitly to rally with white supremacists; even abiding pretense of mockery, part of what we see in the ethic described by the function is also a question of priority: What was important enough to lie for, in order to mock the system? White supremacism.

And, yeah, we kind of knew. These questions of priorities can be very illuminating. Or reaffirming. I mean, come on, it's not like people didn't know. But filing a false statement in order to mock prophylaxis by skipping out on a Covid relief vote in order to pander for white supremacists says what it says about Congressional Republicans and what conservatives vote for. Which brings us back to function, politics, and the low conservative ethic that would justify such behavior.

Thus:

That's just you trying to backpedal, perhaps only vaguely aware that you're failure to grasp "material fact" undermines your entire premise.
But thanks for showing us the low ethics of a leftist, reeling from TDS and desperately seeking new targets for your deeply abiding hatreds, no matter how much you have to ignore legal definitions and conflate terms to justify your clearly motivated reasoning.

As usual, Tiassa has no real comeback or refute of my points. He/she/it just keep making the exact same arguments from demonstrated ignorance, as well as the usual spate of dredging up years old debates he/she/it roundly lost (in an apparent and irrelevant genetic fallacy), conflating or equivocating relatively simple terms, and refusing to admit to even the simplest of mistakes. All this illustrates how Tiassa is the least credible person to be making any proclamations about ethics.

It's actually more a question of how much you intend to invest in being wrong even according to your own sources. Are you embarrassed, or perhaps simply shameless? Not that it matters inasmuch as the effect is the same: Once again, you illustrate the point about function, politics, and the low conservative ethic that would justify such behavior.
____________________

Notes:

United States District Court District of Massachusetts. "4.18.1001 Making a False Statement to a Federal Agency, 18 U.S.C. § 1001". (n.d.) Mad.USCourts.gov. 27 May 2021. https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/resources/pattern2003/html/patt6oxl.htm

 

[Tiassa]

On the Ethics of Self-Incrimination

There are a couple places we might file this one—

… transcripts released by the House Select Committee on January 6 revealed, in an interview transcript with Donald Trump ally Alexander Bruesewitz, that far-right Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), an ardent ally of the former president, texted with a "Stop the Steal" group while he was locked down in the Capitol.

Asked about this, Bruesewitz declined to give any details, and invoked his constitutional rights.

"Can we pull up exhibit 9 again which is the Stop the Steal DM chat, and let's go to page 62," said investigators in the transcript. "So we're still on January 6, and it looks like at 5:15 p.m. eastern time. Again, Representative Gosar sends the group a direct message that says, 'We're still on lockdown in the congressional office.' And he sends it to the entire Stop the Steal group. So were you in communications with Representative Gosar throughout January 6th?"

"I respectfully plead the Fifth," replied Bruesewitz.

Bruesewitz responded the same way to the question, "To the best of your knowledge, why is Representative Gosar sharing that his office was on lockdown with this Stop the Steal group?"

(Chapman↱)​

—but in the moment we come back to function, ethic, and politics, and what it takes to justify conservative behavior.

Consider what we have, here:

• "Were you in communications with Representative Gosar throught January 6th?" It's a yes or no question in which the witness perceives criminal exposure: "I respectfully plead the Fifth."

• "Why is Representative Gosar sharing that his office was on lockdown with this Stop the Steal group?" Again, the witness perceives personal criminal exposure in the answer, thus: "I respectfully plead the Fifth."​

There is another interesting point to this part of the Bruesewitz deposition↱: When asked, "When did you first become aware that protesters were getting violent at the Capitol?" the twenty-four year-old political strategist pleaded the Fifth (21). Additionally, it's worth noting that Bruesewitz and his attorney were reminded that "it's not a valid basis to assert the Fifth Amendment if you do not believe that the truth could lead to prosecution", the attorney responded that their "basis for raising the Fifth here today is constitutionally and legally valid".

So we come back to the idea of Rep. Paul Gosar, the Nazi-sympathizing Republican from Arizona Four. And while filing false paperwork with the House Clerk is in its way, a "nothing burger"↑, or observing the link from Gosar to Fuentes to Stop the Steal is more of a reach than necessary, we might also consider what ethic would justify such behavior, like the idea↑ that not lying would be "just plain stupid".

Because here we are with a political consultant so sensitive about his criminal exposure that he won't even say how long he was in communication with Gosar, or why Gosar might have been updating Stop the Steal on Congressional affairs amid a security crisis. Consider the low ethic of a poltical consultant who thinks his client list is in itself incriminating (6-7).

Still, in his own way, Congressman Gosar remains the star of the moment: How long did you talk to Gosar? Fifth. Why was Gosar telling you? Fifth.

Rep. Paul Gosar is apparently just that radioactive, of such an ethic that Bruesewitz perceives simply communicating with him to have criminal exposure.

And if one should suggest we observe that Bruesewitz might have strategically pleaded the Fifth as a broadspectrum shield, well, that's actually not legal, and his attorney attested to the constitutional and legal validity of invoking the Fifth; but there is also the point of observing the apparent spectre of criminality around Bruesewitz and X Strategies, because, again, this is the sort of ethic that justifies cosnervative behavior.
____________________

Notes:

Chapman, Matthew. "Jan. 6 committee reveals Paul Gosar was texting with 'Stop the Steal' group while locked down in Capitol". Raw Story. 21 December 2022. RawStory.com. 23 December 2022. https://bit.ly/3hPziMA

Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. "Deposition of Alexander Bruesewitz". 8 March 2022. January6th.House.gov. 23 December 2022. https://bit.ly/3GhHXkq

 

[Tiassa]

Ongoing Decline

Ben Jacobs↱ observes that Congressman Paul Gosar (R) has posted a newsletter calling for the execution of political enemies. "In a better society," Gosar asserts, "quislings like the strange sodomy-promoting General Milley would be hung."

The insurrectionist and Nazi sympathizer from Arizona Nine also asserts that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a henchman of the president: "He had one boss," Gosar continues, "President Trump, and instead he was secretly meeting with Pelosi and coordinating with her to hurt Trump."

Again, we can only wonder what low ethic would justify such behavior.
____________________

Notes:

@Bencjacobs. "In which Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar advocates for the execution of Mark Milley in his weekly taxpayer funded newsletter". Twitter. 24 September 2023. Twitter.com. 24 September 2023. https://bit.ly/3LY7fGL