[JumpCrisscross]

> A vote on this doesn't tell you directly whether a politician supports banning TikTok. It doesn't tell you whether they support aid to Ukraine. It doesn't tell you whether they support aid to Israel. It doesn't tell you whether they support aid to Taiwan.

In the House, these bills were individually voted on. (In TikTok's case, twice.) In the Senate, pretty much everyone has made their views known on at least Ukraine, Israel and TikTok. (Taiwan hasn't been particularly contentious.)

[slg]

>In the Senate, pretty much everyone has made their views known on at least Ukraine, Israel and TikTok.

There is a reason I used the word "accountability". There is difference between talk and action and accountability is about making sure the two align. "Made their views known" by itself is just talk that can easily be obfuscated. A voting record is an action and we shouldn't allow politicians to distance themselves from that action with a simple "it was part of a larger bill".

[JumpCrisscross]

> we shouldn't allow politicians to distance themselves from that action

Again, we have an actual case on hand. Who is distancing themselves from anything? Whose position—in talk and votes—on each of these issues isn’t abundantly clear?

[slg]

>Again, we have an actual case on hand.

Which is the disconnect here. I criticized a general practice of which this is an example while you are focusing exclusively on that one example.

[JumpCrisscross]

> I criticized a general practice of which this is an example

But it’s an example that clearly disproves the point. The accountability you describe is a communication, not vote structuring, problem.

[slg]

Politicians lie which is why communication alone can’t be trusted the way actions like voting can.