Page 1 of 2
Expecting a humble status of our representation
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:40 pm
by BridgeConsoleMasher
So I see more or less serious criticism get pointed at politicians lately over extravagant attire and outings.
Gavin Newsome eating at an expensive restaurant in Napa Valley after enacting lockdown policy, congress and executive branch members wearing expensive clothing at ceremonial officiations. People call foul of hypocrisy and/or elitism.
It's hard for me to look past how essentially symbolic these points come across. What kind of real implicative grasp do they have as far as how our representation operates?
Re: Expecting a humble status of our representation
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:20 pm
by Nealithi
Okay what is considered 'extravagant attire' at this point?
And if it is just the usual suits, but they happen to be more than an average citizen can afford. Does this mean everyone should run around in Kmart quality and that is it?
On one hand I do not want an argument. And I can't speak to the Gavin Newsome example you mentioned as I know nothing about it. But from your phrasing it does come off as hypocrisy. But clothing seems an odd point to me.
Re: Expecting a humble status of our representation
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:39 pm
by TGLS
I will answer in list format:
Things I won't hold against politicians:
-> Wearing gem encrusted clothes
-> Having affairs
-> Traveling by private jet
-> Eating fancy meals
-> Generally spending extravagantly
Thing I will hold against politicians
-> Sexual harassment
-> Not paying taxes
-> Misusing funds
-> Taking bribes
-> Going out to a large social gathering after telling people not to do this
-> Generally breaking rules
Re: Expecting a humble status of our representation
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:41 pm
by BridgeConsoleMasher
Nealithi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:20 pm
Okay what is considered 'extravagant attire' at this point?
And if it is just the usual suits, but they happen to be more than an average citizen can afford. Does this mean everyone should run around in Kmart quality and that is it?
On one hand I do not want an argument. And I can't speak to the Gavin Newsome example you mentioned as I know nothing about it. But from your phrasing it does come off as hypocrisy. But clothing seems an odd point to me.
Intrepid line of questioning.
Jill Biden's dress at the inauguration was $7,000.
Gavin Newsome went to eat at The French Laundry, a high-status restaurant in a county in Napa Valley that was not on high-risk status. This was after he established the slightly more comprehensively regional lockdown, consisting of his own personally and professionally residing county being classified on high-risk status.
Re: Expecting a humble status of our representation
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:43 pm
by BridgeConsoleMasher
TGLS wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:39 pmThing I will hold against politicians
-> Sexual harassment
-> Not paying taxes
-> Misusing funds
-> Taking bribes
-> Going out to a large social gathering after telling people not to do this
-> Generally breaking rules
How willing are you to budge on #4?
Re: Expecting a humble status of our representation
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:59 pm
by TGLS
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:43 pm
TGLS wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:39 pmThing I will hold against politicians
-> Sexual harassment
-> Not paying taxes
-> Misusing funds
-> Taking bribes
-> Going out to a large social gathering after telling people not to do this
-> Generally breaking rules
How willing are you to budge on #4?
Depends on my cut
More seriously, it depends. Politician forgot to declare that a lobbyist bought them lunch? Meh. Politician forgot to declare a lobbyist bought them a car? More serious. Corrupt politician is running against a rapist? I guess I have to swallow my pride and vote for the corrupt guy.
Re: Expecting a humble status of our representation
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:11 pm
by BridgeConsoleMasher
TGLS wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:59 pm
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:43 pm
TGLS wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:39 pmThing I will hold against politicians
-> Sexual harassment
-> Not paying taxes
-> Misusing funds
-> Taking bribes
-> Going out to a large social gathering after telling people not to do this
-> Generally breaking rules
How willing are you to budge on #4?
Depends on my cut
More seriously, it depends. Politician forgot to declare that a lobbyist bought them lunch? Meh. Politician forgot to declare a lobbyist bought them a car? More serious. Corrupt politician is running against a rapist? I guess I have to swallow my pride and vote for the corrupt guy.
An unexpectedly textural response. Thank you.
Anyways, the restaurant was operating legitimately, or at least in consistence with the state ordinance that Newsome administrated. Most tangible argument I've really seen is for matters of general indecency and not really consisting particularly of ordinated favorability.
Re: Expecting a humble status of our representation
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:17 pm
by Nealithi
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:41 pm
Nealithi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:20 pm
Okay what is considered 'extravagant attire' at this point?
And if it is just the usual suits, but they happen to be more than an average citizen can afford. Does this mean everyone should run around in Kmart quality and that is it?
On one hand I do not want an argument. And I can't speak to the Gavin Newsome example you mentioned as I know nothing about it. But from your phrasing it does come off as hypocrisy. But clothing seems an odd point to me.
Intrepid line of questioning.
Jill Biden's dress at the inauguration was $7,000.
Gavin Newsome went to eat at The French Laundry, a high-status restaurant in a county in Napa Valley that was not on high-risk status. This was after he established the slightly more comprehensively regional lockdown, consisting of his own personally and professionally residing county being classified on high-risk status.
So not technically one of the politicians but the First Lady who is a teacher etc.
This actually touches a nerve with me because there is a can't win built in here. I don't recall which term. But when President Obama was in office, an article came out to slam the then First Lady Michelle Obama over her dress. Specifically because she wore it twice. . .
I did not know you were supposed to throw away your clothes if you wore them once.
Then this because the price tag of her dress was twice what I paid for my car. . .
Did she raise taxes to afford this? Did they take a kickback? Yes it is pretty expensive. And it was worn to what many would consider a pretty prestigious event. So why not?
Re: Expecting a humble status of our representation
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:46 pm
by Robovski
Rules for thee and not for me is not acceptable. If anyone deserves a good punching for it in social media, it's the politicians claiming to lead us.
Re: Expecting a humble status of our representation
Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:14 am
by BridgeConsoleMasher
Nealithi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:17 pm
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:41 pm
Nealithi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:20 pm
Okay what is considered 'extravagant attire' at this point?
And if it is just the usual suits, but they happen to be more than an average citizen can afford. Does this mean everyone should run around in Kmart quality and that is it?
On one hand I do not want an argument. And I can't speak to the Gavin Newsome example you mentioned as I know nothing about it. But from your phrasing it does come off as hypocrisy. But clothing seems an odd point to me.
Intrepid line of questioning.
Jill Biden's dress at the inauguration was $7,000.
Gavin Newsome went to eat at The French Laundry, a high-status restaurant in a county in Napa Valley that was not on high-risk status. This was after he established the slightly more comprehensively regional lockdown, consisting of his own personally and professionally residing county being classified on high-risk status.
So not technically one of the politicians but the First Lady who is a teacher etc.
This actually touches a nerve with me because there is a can't win built in here. I don't recall which term. But when President Obama was in office, an article came out to slam the then First Lady Michelle Obama over her dress. Specifically because she wore it twice. . .
I did not know you were supposed to throw away your clothes if you wore them once.
Then this because the price tag of her dress was twice what I paid for my car. . .
Did she raise taxes to afford this? Did they take a kickback? Yes it is pretty expensive. And it was worn to what many would consider a pretty prestigious event. So why not?
Yeah I know. While I will consider discretion for such matters, I do find courting the office of the federal branch for such elected positions is quite to be quite grand in ceremonium.