All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[numberthirty]

I think doing the job you were elected to do would show that respect way more than dressing nice, but hey that's just me.

Someone can do both.

Very easily.

[thwhtGuardian]

Here is the obvious thing about that...

If you managed to get yourself indicted?

It is perfectly logical to say "Look, you're going to have to earn the trust to wind up back in any sort of a 'Leadership...' sort of a position..."

Obviously, nothing even remotely like that took place.

I don't live in New Jersey so I'm not super well versed in his accomplishments...but the last charges were in 2015 and he was cleared in 2018.

Can you conclusively show he didn't convince his peers he was worthy of trust in the five years(eight if we start with when the charges were first brought) between then?

Again, the gold bars and literal piles of cash laying around his house are pretty damning this time and definitely make you think he was probably doing the same back then with his doctor buddy but hindsight isn't something you can rely on to inform you when you're actually in the moment. So pretending like this should have been a no brainer all along seems a little weird.

And again, the point still stands that zero major Republicans have called out their members for similar behavior and yet here we have all kinds of pressure to resign so it's a bit of a nothing burger instead of some gotcha.

[thwhtGuardian]

Someone can do both.

Very easily.

Sure, but is it necessary?

If he doesn't feel like wearing a tie but he lives up to all his obligations I could really care less.

The only job I can see where not wearing a suit and tie would be an issue is if you're literally modeling or selling suits and ties, otherwise it has zero to do with how well I assume you're doing your job.

[numberthirty]

I don't live in New Jersey so I'm not super well versed in his accomplishments...but the last charges were in 2015 and he was cleared in 2018.

Can you conclusively show he didn't convince his peers he was worthy of trust in the five years(eight if we start with when the charges were first brought) between then?

Again, the gold bars and literal piles of cash laying around his house are pretty damning this time and definitely make you think he was probably doing the same back then with his doctor buddy but hindsight isn't something you can rely on to inform you when you're actually in the moment.

While I know that I am more of a "There Should Be A Fed And An Accountant Breathing Down Each Of Their Necks..." person than most of the usual folks in this thread?

"Cleared..." feels like kind of a stretch to me, personally.

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

In April 2018, the United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics "severely admonished" Menendez in a letter, writing:

The Committee has found that over a six-year period you knowingly and repeatedly accepted gifts of significant value from Dr. Melgen without obtaining required Committee approval, and that you failed to publicly disclose certain gifts as required by Senate Rule and federal law. Additionally, while accepting these gifts, you used your position as a Member of the Senate to advance Dr. Melgen's personal and business interests. The Committee has determined that this conduct violated Senate Rules, federal law, and applicable standards of conduct. Accordingly, the Committee issues you this Public Letter of Admonition and also directs you to repay the fair market value of all impermissible gifts not already repaid

He had a Chairmanship less than four years after that.

[numberthirty]

Sure, but is it necessary?

If he doesn't feel like wearing a tie but he lives up to all his obligations I could really care less.

The only job I can see where not wearing a suit and tie would be an issue is if you're literally modeling or selling suits and ties, otherwise it has zero to do with how well I assume you're doing your job.

Of course not.

That's why I said it wouldn't be the end of the world if it doesn't go that way.

That said, it is a seriously easy lift to do it and it's not really about professionalism/how you are doing the job. Strictly about doing your best to make it clear to everyone whose taxes pay those folks that you respect them putting you into a pretty comfortable position.

[Kevinroc]

Fetterman called for Menendez to resign.

https://www.axios.com/2023/09/23/fet...resign-bribery

[Dalak]

I think doing the job you were elected to do would show that respect way more than dressing nice, but hey that's just me.

I would think not spending the money on expensive clothing would be more respectful of taxpayers as well.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, as well as 2022, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” published profiles of the U.S. House Representative from Texas’ 26th Congressional District, Mike Burgess, the U.S. House Representative from Texas’ 26th Congressional District whose claim to fame is discussing masturbating fetuses touching themselves in the womb for their own pleasure as part of his “pro-life” arguments before Congress.

Burgess has also openly discussed the impeachment of Barack Obama (declining to comment WHAT the impeachable offense he committed was), going on FOX News to call for witch hunts into the attacks in Benghazi, amongst other tacky quotes and votes. Not surprisingly, he also bought into the Center for Medical Progress’ “sting” video and tried defunding Plannned Parenthood around this time a year ago.Going into the latest session of Congress, Mike Burgess was looking forward to trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and when asked about the millions of people who would lose their insurance coverage as a result, he laughed it off and was excited to do so because it would mean “more freedom”.

Ah yes. The freedom to die because you can’t afford your medical costs anymore. That’s something to strive for, Mike. Especially for someone who purports himself to be a “pro-life” physician.

Texas has been trending more and more blue every year, but Texas’ 26th Congressional District still has a +13 Republican lean.

Texas has been trending more and more blue every year, but Texas’ 26th Congressional District still has a +13 Republican lean. He won re-election in 2022 on the benefit of only having to run against a Libertarian challenger. Thus, he’s back in Washington to do things like this:

• May 2nd, 2018: Mike Burgess is one of 18 Republicans who sign on to a letter asking to nominate Donald Trump for a Nobel Prize for meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.
• December 3rd, 2019: Rep. Burgess votes against a resolution to disallow Russia from re-entering the G7 and makes it the G8 until it leaves Ukraine.
• December 18th, 2019: Burgess ignores his Congressional duty to hold a president who has been proven to commit high crimes and misdemeanors accountable and votes against the first impeachment of Donald Trump.
• December 10th, 2020: Burgess signs his name to an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, begging them to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
• January 7th, 2021: Michael Burgess votes for the objection to the electoral college’s votes in the 2020 election, a failure to send any sort of message that he wasn’t intimidated or sympathetic to those who attacked the Capitol to attempt a violent coup.
• January 13th, 2021: Rep. Burgess votes against the second impeachment of Donald Trump, because the Republican Party no longer feels like they should be accountable for anything, including failed coups that result in the deaths of police officers.
• March 10th, 2021: Burgess votes against the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, because he feels people deserve to die in poverty during a pandemic.
• March 17th, 2021: Rep. Burgess votes against the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, likely because they feel the 2nd Amendment remaining absolute is more important than preventing people with a history of domestic abuse from owning a firearm (which statistics show, makes them more likely to use those firearms against women in their lives).
• May 19th, 2021: Rep. Burgess votes against HR 3233, the creation of a commission to investigate the Capitol Attack.
• November 5th, 2021: Michael Burgess votes against HR 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
• May 18th, 2022: Michael Burgess is one of 192 Republicans who votes against HR 7790, to create supplemental funding for infant formula (while claiming to be pro- life).
• May 18th, 2022: Rep. Burgess votes against HR 350, the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, because these days, a plank of the Republican Party is ostensibly domestic terror.
• May 19th, 2022: Burgess votes against HR 7688, a bill which would help prevent gas companies from gouging customers on prices.
• July 15th, 2022: Michael Burgess votes against House Amendment 262, which would require the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and Secretary of Defense to publish a report on the infiltration of American law enforcement by Neo-Nazis and white supremacists, offer measures to be taken to remove them from their ranks, and prevent further infiltration by others.
• July 13th, 2022: Burgess votes against the Honoring Our PACT Act, to provide healthcare to veterans affected by toxic burn pits while serving in the War on Terror that leave them more susceptible to forms of cancer.
• July 19th, 2022: Rep. Burgess is one of 157 Republicans who vote against the “Respect for Marriage Act”, which would codify same sex marriage into law nationally.
• July 21st, 2022: Burgess is one of 195 Republicans who vote against the Right to Contraception Act, which codified the right of Americans to have access to birth control.
• December 1st, 2022: Rep. Burgess is one of 90 Republicans who vote against HR 6878, meaning he is perfectly fine with pregnant women in prison being placed in solitary confinement while claiming to be “pro-life”.
• December 6th, 2022: Burgess, embracing the GOP’s white nationalist, anti-immigrant sentiment votes against HR 7946, which was meant to honor the promise to grant citizenship to immigrants who served in the United States Armed Forces.
• July 13th, 2023: Burgess is one of 70 Republicans who vote for an amendment that would cut all U.S. funding to support our ally, Ukraine, to repel a Russian invasion.

Michael Burgess is currently trending more towards the anti-immgrant demographic, not blinking while, he was shouted down and booed by constituents outraged over the Trump administration’s family separation policy, which he dug in and stated his support for. By April 2019, he showed he’s far enough gone that he’d even support the extreme idea to completely shut down the U.S./Mexico border so no one crosses it in either direction. And even with Donald Trump gone, he’s still xenophobic enough to co-sponsor HR 2729, the “Finish the Wall” Act in the current term of Congress.

This bloated tick upon our legislative branch is now approaching 73 years aold, and will regrettably be unlikely to leave office until he’s decided to retire or he shuffles off his mortal coil. He's probably holding out hope that he can be one of the deranged forced-birth idjits to sponsor the bill to outlaw abortion at the federal level.

[hyped78]

I don't understand why so much finger pointing at Fetterman's clothing, when Ted Cruz walks around the Senate in a t-shirt and shorts. I don't think most taxpayers care about the way Senators are dressed, that should literally be one of the least important things

[godisawesome]

The dress code thing is an example of where something arbitrary and purely symbolic - because we all know that your clothing has no substantial impact on your duties as a politician - can become a political issue about messaging. Fetterman *is* sending a populist message of some sort, and the two responses you can have against it are to either just try and quietly hope he comes off as ridiculous and quietly spread that message, or try to force the argument into a different POV that you can defend.

It’s not really a major gesture until importance is imparted by its enemies, though; Fetterman, if anything, is probably *happy* to have people criticizing his style. Ignoring it in public and quietly spreading unflattering photos would have worked much better.

[hyped78]

The dress code thing is an example of where something arbitrary and purely symbolic - because we all know that your clothing has no substantial impact on your duties as a politician - can become a political issue about messaging. Fetterman *is* sending a populist message of some sort, and the two responses you can have against it are to either just try and quietly hope he comes off as ridiculous and quietly spread that message, or try to force the argument into a different POV that you can defend.

It’s not really a major gesture until importance is imparted by its enemies, though; Fetterman, if anything, is probably *happy* to have people criticizing his style. Ignoring it in public and quietly spreading unflattering photos would have worked much better.

What do you mean by “populist message”?

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I don't understand why so much finger pointing at Fetterman's clothing, when Ted Cruz walks around the Senate in a t-shirt and shorts. I don't think most taxpayers care about the way Senators are dressed, that should literally be one of the least important things

It’s a big, fat and juicy nothingburger, Obama’s tan suit 2.0, and everyone knows it, but, Qpublicans will whine and bitch about Fetterman anyway.

[Farealmer]

Of course not.

That's why I said it wouldn't be the end of the world if it doesn't go that way.

That said, it is a seriously easy lift to do it and it's not really about professionalism/how you are doing the job. Strictly about doing your best to make it clear to everyone whose taxes pay those folks that you respect them putting you into a pretty comfortable position.

Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

I would think not spending the money on expensive clothing would be more respectful of taxpayers as well.

This, 100% this. I would rather the money they got was spent on something more important than looking more expensive than the people they represent.

[godisawesome]

What do you mean by “populist message”?

He’s sending a quiet “Screw the suit and tie elites, I’m like you regular dudes, and we should be in charge” message; we can debate the authenticity, depth, or power of the message, but it’s somewhat unique in that he’s a male Dem shaping his political image that way when so many GOPers are desperate for that kind of imaging. Bernie’s scruffiness is of a similar type. And in America, we’ve long had a quiet tradition of valuing informality as a kind of “virtue of the common man.”

It’s important to remember that populism is more a type of appeal than a particular political ethos, which is what makes it attractive, powerful and dangerous depending on who manages to use it.

Fetterman has occasionally been treated as particularly dangerous by some GOP strategists because, while I personally think he looks like his ceiling is in Congress, his style of presentation would be a dangerous visual matchup against the Ted Cruz types, and maybe even against someone like Trump.

[hyped78]

He’s sending a quiet “Screw the suit and tie elites, I’m like you regular dudes, and we should be in charge” message; we can debate the authenticity, depth, or power of the message, but it’s somewhat unique in that he’s a male Dem shaping his political image that way when so many GOPers are desperate for that kind of imaging. Bernie’s scruffiness is of a similar type. And in America, we’ve long had a quiet tradition of valuing informality as a kind of “virtue of the common man.”

It’s important to remember that populism is more a type of appeal than a particular political ethos, which is what makes it attractive, powerful and dangerous depending on who manages to use it.

Fetterman has occasionally been treated as particularly dangerous by some GOP strategists because, while I personally think he looks like his ceiling is in Congress, his style of presentation would be a dangerous visual matchup against the Ted Cruz types, and maybe even against someone like Trump.

Gotcha, makes sense