1/ A Short Thread About Civility and Calling Politicians Liars.

Nice people are sometimes uncomfortable that I call some politicians "liar". And I don't apologize for it.

But I don't call every politician "liar". Only the ones who deliberately tell provable lies and do so

2/ repeatedly. A lie is different from an accidental misstatement. For example, when @michaelaglasgo lied about her church's carbon tax, it could have been a genuine mistake. But she doubled down by telling other lies. And has since been caught in more.

#cdnpoli #abpoli #ableg
3/ When @KayceeMaduYEG is caught lying, he doesn't do the right thing. He just plows ahead. As if lying doesn't matter.

So which is more uncivil: calling out people who lie a lot OR being in a position of public trust and lying to people in the first place?
4/ I think it's important that once a politician is found to lie repeatedly, like @jkenney , we never forget that anything they say could be a lie. We need to always weigh it. Look for lies of omission.

Civil discourse cannot survive if politicians lie all the time. It can't.
5/ So as rude as it might be, when members of @UCPCaucus tell lies, we should be calling them "liar" every time. As long as they think they're getting away with it, they won't stop. So shame them.

If the politician is a lawyer, report their behaviour to the Law Society.
6/ If tgey belong to any regilated peofession and their lies violate a Code of Conduct/Ethics, report the lie. Make it clear that there are consequences for lying.

@jkenney famously, and ironically, booted Fildebrandt from caucus for lying to him. But we are inundated with lies
7/ from @UCPCaucus members and their staff. Outright lies and lies of omission.

It is these "bad actors" who are being uncivil.

When they trot out their chirch affiliations, ask what their church's stance is on lying. When they trot out their kids for photo ops, ask if
8/ they think lying sets a good example for their kids.

Because the decision to lie or to spread the lies of others IS personal. It is not a party decision.

And if someone wants to lose the label of Liar, they need to take several steps if they hope to regain public trust.
8/ First, they have to admit they've been liars.
Second, they have to apologize to the people they serve - and mean it.
Third, they should thank the people who have been fighting to make them honest.
Fourth, they should make both public and private commitments to stop lying.
9/ I have seen people in the publuc eye make real changes in direction, and I admire them for it.

It will be hard to do in @UCPCaucus
because the party was formed through lies and corruption. But it is possible.

The ones who don't change need to be denied nominations.
10/ We can't afford the chaos of the political establishment's current addiction to lying.

And that means refusing to countenance it.

That's not uncivil. It's a blatant bid for civility to be restored. /end

More from Politics

OK. The Teams meeting that I unsuccessfully evaded (and which was actually a lot of fun and I'm really genuinely happy I was reminded to attend) is over, so let's take another swing at looking at the latest filings from in re Gondor.


As far as I can tell from the docket, this is the FOURTH attempt in a week to get a TRO; the question the judge will ask if they ever figure out how to get the judge's attention will be "couldn't you have served by now;" and this whole thing is a

The memorandum in support of this one is 9 pages, and should go pretty quick.

But they still haven't figured out widow/orphan issues.

https://t.co/l7EDatDudy


It appears that the opening of this particular filing is going to proceed on the theme of "we are big mad at @SollenbergerRC" which is totally something relevant when you are asking a District Court to temporarily annihilate the US Government on an ex parte basis.


Also, if they didn't want their case to be known as "in re Gondor" they really shouldn't have gone with the (non-literary) "Gondor has no king" quote.

You May Also Like

I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.


I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.

In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.

So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.

Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.