Adolf Hitler got a parking ticket.
U.S. Rep.-elect George Santos (R-NY) lied to the voters, and WON the election. Should he be allowed to take office?
- Thread starter sear
- Start date
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Guilt by association? How would Hunter Biden look if held to that standard?
Seems to me holding Santos to account for the issues directly involved is enough.
By and large legislators don't like to pass laws against the system that brought them to power. BUT !!
We can home a majority of current members of congress (MOC) campaigned substantially ethically. If so, they're not really jeopardizing the system or themselves by passing a law that winning elective office based upon fraudulent claims is fraud, and renders the election win null & void. Don't hold your breath. That's not going to happen anytime soon. But it was overdue before Santos announced his candidacy. Speaker McCarthy may offer rhetorical condemnation of Santos. But neither Speaker McCarthy nor the GOP is serious about substantively addressing this broader problem of campaign fraud, if they narrow their attention simply to Santos.
Seems to me holding Santos to account for the issues directly involved is enough.
By and large legislators don't like to pass laws against the system that brought them to power. BUT !!
We can home a majority of current members of congress (MOC) campaigned substantially ethically. If so, they're not really jeopardizing the system or themselves by passing a law that winning elective office based upon fraudulent claims is fraud, and renders the election win null & void. Don't hold your breath. That's not going to happen anytime soon. But it was overdue before Santos announced his candidacy. Speaker McCarthy may offer rhetorical condemnation of Santos. But neither Speaker McCarthy nor the GOP is serious about substantively addressing this broader problem of campaign fraud, if they narrow their attention simply to Santos.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Depends what those links are.
S2 #24
True.
But it seems to me, considering what Santos has already admitted to, unless Santos' Russian ties are clones of Hitler's & Stalin's love-child, it's of secondary importance. That doesn't mean Santos deserves a pass on it. Merely that once we jerk that sucker out of the Capitol, the details will be less important. BUT !!
As a native born and life-long New Yorker, this entire Santos winning the election thing is a tomahawk in my forehead. - ouch -
True.
But it seems to me, considering what Santos has already admitted to, unless Santos' Russian ties are clones of Hitler's & Stalin's love-child, it's of secondary importance. That doesn't mean Santos deserves a pass on it. Merely that once we jerk that sucker out of the Capitol, the details will be less important. BUT !!
As a native born and life-long New Yorker, this entire Santos winning the election thing is a tomahawk in my forehead. - ouch -
Borg Refinery
Active member
Elise Stefanik is a much bigger tomahawk in the forehead I would have thought, but then Hillary Clinton was a senator for that state, I do think she was awful.
Last edited:
a) Stefanik is indeed the bigger tomahawk.
b) She's geographically closer to home (to me, than Santos).
c) Hillary might not have won any beauty contests. BUT !!
Of the U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), former Speaker Newton Gingrich (R-GA) said: "She's serious, she's hard working, she is a first rate professional."
Supplementing that, (then) current RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman said:
"Senator Clinton is smart, uh, she's effective, uh ... very hard working."
Source: NBC-TV Meet The Press June 5, 2005
My biggest gig on Hillary is she let Trump beat her. However bad Hillery might have been, I suspect she'd have been a better pres. than Trump.
Borg Refinery
Active member
That's not saying much, she was still utterly horrible, did you see the video where she laughingly said "we came, we saw, we killed"?
That was absolutely horrifying. That's what she's like, she's a lot like Trump in those respects, some guy over on RN called Jra said she actually wanted him investigated re his farm subsidies because he dared criticise her to her face. He's [Jra] not really a Trump supporter, in fact he hates Trump. There are a lot of really bad things Clinton has done such as stuff like that, and this.
Obama and FDR represent the best of the Democratic Party.
Hillary and people like Andrew Jackson represented the absolute worst of the party and should be consigned to the dustbin of history where they belong, BTW didn't her and hubby even steal shit from teh white house they were forced to give back???
That was absolutely horrifying. That's what she's like, she's a lot like Trump in those respects, some guy over on RN called Jra said she actually wanted him investigated re his farm subsidies because he dared criticise her to her face. He's [Jra] not really a Trump supporter, in fact he hates Trump. There are a lot of really bad things Clinton has done such as stuff like that, and this.
Obama and FDR represent the best of the Democratic Party.
Hillary and people like Andrew Jackson represented the absolute worst of the party and should be consigned to the dustbin of history where they belong, BTW didn't her and hubby even steal shit from teh white house they were forced to give back???
Borg Refinery
Active member
Wowie zowie (60s music ref for ya), they gave him two committee assignments.
The Washington Examiner (very right leaning) seems deeply unimpressed with this and seems to be attacking the GOP for giving him such assignments - it's good to see right-wing media criticising them for this, at the very least.
The Washington Examiner (very right leaning) seems deeply unimpressed with this and seems to be attacking the GOP for giving him such assignments - it's good to see right-wing media criticising them for this, at the very least.
I think I missed it. Either that, or forgot having seen it. I wouldn't criticize Hillary too harshly based on a small fraction of her contribution.
She was First Lady of Arkansas.
She was First Lady of the United States (known to the Secret Service as FLOTUS).
She was junior U.S. senator from NY.
She was secretary of State.
She was the nominee of her party for president. (AND !! she actually won the vote, though she did lose the election)
Not too shabby, even if she has cackled on camera a little too much.
Interesting point. I suppose they could have refused to do so.
Borg Refinery
Active member
Hillary Clinton was truly an awful human being, Trump and others can boast about their gr8 achievements too but I'm not impressed.
She cackled about murdering Qadafi and plunging Libya into chaos which has claimed thousands of mnnocent lives, what's wrong with her? This is what many in the Dems are like, nasty uncaring a-holes.
She cackled about murdering Qadafi and plunging Libya into chaos which has claimed thousands of mnnocent lives, what's wrong with her? This is what many in the Dems are like, nasty uncaring a-holes.
Unlike the philanthropic, compassionate Republicans? The ones known the world around for their honesty & integrity?
IIRC it was Reagan (R-CA) that sent the B-1 raid to Quadaffy.
Borg Refinery
Active member
Well, given you already know my opinions on both Trump and the wider Republican Party, why are you asking this question in bad faith?
Am I verboten from having the 'wrong' opinions on Biden just because it may be giving ammo to the enemy to shoot America and Dems with? No, I am not even a US citizen.
My opinions are actually 100% irrelevant.
I am simply sharing them on a backwater internet forum, and I am allowed to be critical of Hillary and Biden and anyone - just because I am critical of them to the fullest extent it doesn't in any way imply an endorsement of Trumpism or anything like that, thought you'd have worked that out by now.
You can't refute the facts I posted about Hillary Clinton either, did she steal furniture from the White House when her and Bill left and was she forced to give them back? IIRC a Snopes fact check seemed to think so? What about the illegal UAE donations thing? What about her compassion-less conduct? And frankly (and I know this is an annoying Republican talking point) she appeared to show 0% contrition for what happened in Benghazi, BTW some liberal and pro-Dem media sources seemed to imply she was actually at fault for that, ultimately.
No, she doesn't drink children's blood or want to inject good 'Muricans with tabasco in vaccines and sell them to China for a few renminbi, but that doesn't make her good either, just because she was 1% better than Trump, should I now simply gloss over ALL criticism of her? This is your thinking?
It would be nice to see the Dems held to account for everything they get wrong. The Republicans have less than zero credibility so someone else has to [hold the Dems to account], those 'other people' ought to be good and principled Americans who reject corruption whereever it comes from.
Last edited:
No.
Not bad faith. It might seem so, perhaps particularly in private conversation. And though bandwidth is low here, I consider this a public forum. And my #32 is intended as satire. U.S. president Trump (R-NY) is the most dishonest national leader I can name. North Korea's Kim Jong Un may not be a bastion of fidelity to truth. But Trump seems to me to be a compulsive liar. Seems to me he lies just to keep in practice.
And while I'm no Hillary fan I acknowledge the success of her husband as a politician. And even if your criticism of her is correct, I suspect it addresses the 5%, & ignores the 95%.
I'm not now, and don't recall ever disputing your "evidence". We differ on your conclusion. Let's compare.
Clinton got 2 terms as president. That's most of a decade residing in the White House. She "stole *" some furniture.
I can easily understand how there might have been some confusion. FYI:
When the U.S. president changes, the protocol is for the First Family to remain in the White House until inauguration day for their replacement. While they're out for the ~noon day formality, their household is boxed and moved out. Then the new president's household is moved in to the White House, ready for when the inauguration is over.
If you assume Hillary is a dimwit you can pretend she thought she would "get away with it". But unless you have HD video of Hillary muscling an armoire out the back door, I'd reserve final judgement.
And compared to Trump's January 6th Insurrection I hardly believe this Clinton furniture heist you mention actually evens the badness competition between Dems. & Reps.
Your opinions are welcome. That's substantially the purpose of this forum.
I hope my analysis of your opinion are not unwelcome.
a) At what?
b) Trump's specialty was spewing glaringly implausible nonsense.
Obamacare ACA
"You're going to have such great healthcare at a tiny fraction of the cost." candidate Trump 16/10/25 from campaign podium
“It will be repeal & replace. It will be essentially simultaneously. It will be various segments you understand, but will most likely be on the same day or the same week.” President Elect Trump at his only post election victory news conference in New York 17/01/11 / FNS
After challenge to VP Elect Pence from Chris Wallace, Pence added:
“... you're seeing an incredible increase in premiums on Americans. Obamacare has failed. We're going to repeal it. But at the same time we're gunna pass the kind of legislation that will lower the cost of health insurance without growing the size of government. I would anticipate in the first hundred days that uh we'll deliver on that promise to the American People.” VP Elect Pence 17/01/15 on FNS
“Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated.” President Trump
I don't recall vividly, but my memory is that Trump's major "accomplishment" was to damage Obamacare to the extent he could. But Republicans en mass tried to damage or eliminate Obamacare. And even with help from the judiciary, they never buried the Obamacare corpse.
* I haven't heard her side of this. But I acknowledge, the Clinton's reportedly had two non-consecutive terms as Governor, AR.
Borg Refinery
Active member
What her and her hubby do are separate. IMHO Bill is a war criminal for his knowingly allowing the Rwanda genocide to happen, which WAS preventable on his end as acknowledged in this report released in 2015.
My Godfather was there BTW, he saw wheelbarrows piled up to the top with the body parts of babies, parts of them were chopped off by militias who were murdering each other, this was preventable and did not have to happen - they had intel this WOULD happen if they pulled out. From the report:
And how do you rebut that?
What her and her hubby do are separate but no, stealing some crap from the WH is the very least of what either of them have done, it's the tip of the iceberg, it's not right to suggest that's the worst of what Hillary did.
lol, are you even aware of what actually happened? They returned the furniture they stole, the culpability had been admitted to.
Trump was a Democrat most of his life and supported universal healthcare all the way up until early 2016 when he had a 180 degree about-turn, as with many of his polciies; he was a gross populist who cared not about principle - he cared only about how he was perceived by his voting base [whoever they were at the time].
He wanted to lower drug prices for a long time, actually said he opposed big pharma (while taking big backhanders from them].
I do not know why you are defending Hillary Clinton's conduct while in office(s). She was pretty terrible in every position she's ever held. Her hubby Bill is IMHO a war criminal and engaged largely in bot hthe War on Drugs as well as racist, brutal Law & Order style policing that needlessly criminalised many black people in the United States. I don't see why he was someone to be celebrated.
Last edited:
Borg Refinery
Active member
It gets bizarrer still:
So he was a drag queen? He also stole from a disabled vet's dying dog GoFundMe fund.
Stranger than fiction.
So he was a drag queen? He also stole from a disabled vet's dying dog GoFundMe fund.
Stranger than fiction.
What her and her hubby do are separate in my opinion as well. But it is often the case, perhaps usually the case that spouses share similar points of view *. In the Clinton case, they're both Democrats, etc.
And Bill trusted Hillary. When Bill took office he entrusted Hillary with the burden of healthcare reform. Bill wouldn't have chosen her if he didn't think she'd handle this pet project of his, to the president's own liking.
U.S. President William Jefferson Clinton (WJC) may have had the capacity to affect the Rwanda genocide. Surely we knew of it before it began. BUT !!
We've had an ideological standard since our Founding, articulated by a prominent U.S. Founder:
I believe:
- in logic
- in ethic
- in U.S. law
- in international law
capacity to impart a favorable outcome in the WJC / Rwanda case is not an absolute requirement to do so.
It's too long ago. WJC may be a war criminal for something else, I don't remember. If you cite an example I'd gladly address it.
Worth noting: U.N. troops ("blue helmets") have been dispatched to trouble spot. It doesn't always work well. Conservative syndicated columnist George Will said they're "worse than nothing".
You can blame the U.S. president for the Rwanda massacre. Is there a rational reason you spare the U.K.'s PM comparable condemnation? Could the PM not have done anything about it? You blame Clinton. Seems selective to me.
And thus among the reasons I didn't. YOU cited the WH furniture example. I dismiss the example. That's not the same as being adjudicated not guilty. Merely that for very busy "type-A" personalities living in public housing for most of their adult lives (to that point), there may have been some confusion.
YOU show ME the smoking gun, high def vids of Hillary wrestling some furniture out of the WH, and we can go deeper. BUT !! At that stage in her life Hillary understood what you and I both already know. These items are almost certainly inventoried, itemized, and accounted for individually. It's absolutely utterly preposterous to accuse Hillary of actually attempting to get away with stealing such furniture. If she really liked it she could have taken alternate means, including having it duplicated, buying it outright, etc. The story is so nonsensical I prefer not to waste any more of my time even addressing it. I'm absolutely certain each of them has certainly committed far more serious transgressions.
Totally no.
And even if she confessed, it may simply have been an expedient to muzzle them. And even if she's outright 100% guilty of it, Reagan did far worse, Iran / Contra.
There is of course some leeway at the WH. Amy Carter carved her initials in her WH bedroom windowsill. Not the end of the world.
BR #36
I consider 2 separate issues in the Santos case.
a) What to do about Santos.
It seems that's up to the GOP for now, unless Santos' lawlessness earns him a conviction which then bars him from office.
b) What institutional remedy, what revision to practice could be imparted to the rules so that in the future if a candidate lies his way into office, the election is null & void. That's playing with fire. The problem is, failing to take appropriate action is itself a problem.
* The exceptions are anecdotal, Carville / Matlin come to mind.
Borg Refinery
Active member
Where did I say Clinton was singularly responsible..? There's no singular blame for the tragedy, yes we and the French are also culpable, your point being? Our governments have also been atrocious and committed many, many war crimes. At no point did I excuse our government or anyone else - you put words in my mouth to try and advance your point.
You think stealing furniture and being forced to give it back is a 'trivial point'?
Ah, whataboutery, Reagan was worse so that excuses all that the Clintons did. That's the way Putin puts forth his points, don't be like Putin. I've never once given you reason to think I'd excuse Reagan's atrocious foreign policies.
Ah, trying to make my argument out to be absurd with absurd comparisons.
The House Ethics Committee's investigation should be fun.
You expressed an opinion "Bill is a war criminal".
One is ONLY a criminal if they perpetrate a "crime". By you expressing your opinion Bill is a war criminal you accuse him of that crime.
Then
"Singularly"? Not sure why this word is being introduced. Would Bill be less guilty if France's president did as Bill did?
Is Bill guilty or not? You expressed your opinion he is. Fine. What difference does it make if anyone else?
Don't you?
Which do you think is more important? "Stealing" some government furniture she'd had for 8 years, or representing hundreds of millions of her countrymen as First Lady?
I don't know the details of this alleged crime. But the notion Hillary sneaked in with a burglar mask (the kind familiar to costume parties) and physically carried furniture from inside, to outside, and then what? Into her duplicate moving van? To take it where? For what?
Logic tells me it's more likely to be a label issue, or some other systemic flaw. If all the items to be moved received an inventory dot, a brightly colored adhesive sticker, and ... ?
I'd need more details than you have.
But I will say this: it is a cliche' that men control the world, and women control the men. WJC had nuclear planetary overkill. The figure I read during the Cold War was 13 x, meaning the nukes on Earth could kill the planetary human population thirteen times over. Even if Hillary tried to steal every stick of furniture in Washington DC I'd say it's not impossible that by keeping Bill happy, she may have averted cataclysmic nuclear Armageddon.
I'm not asserting a probability factor here. You're on your own on that. My point is merely that at this point I cannot rule that out. I'm CERTAIN there's plenty to criticize Hillary for. But I don't recall ever hearing a Republican complain about furniture theft.
It's context.
You think it better to consider this (or any other) issue OUT of context? Any such issue when considered should be contextualized on the scale, the spectrum it lies on. Is it the best? Is it the worst? Is it somewhere in between? You're welcome to ignore the context if you like. But it would be irrational to do so.
Iran / Contra was worse than stealing a chair. You may not think so. Splendid. But I personally believe, when the difference can be counted in human corpses, seems to me Iran / Contra was worse. How many died when Hillary carried the desk out through the North portico?
"Comparison"?
Perhaps contextualization is related to comparison. Your position is Hillary's WH furniture theft was so egregious that it warrants as much cyber-ink as you've given it here. I disagree. But if merit were the criterion, wouldn't the dead horse we're flogging here be Bill's Rwandan genocide? How many thousands were murdered there? How many thousands more maimed, or permanently disfigured? Yet what's important to you? A ship label was improperly stuck on a piece of furniture the Clinton's had use of for most of a decade? Have you ever squeezed a melon?
Borg Refinery
Active member
Take this for example:
Where did I even begin to suggest such a thing? Why must you make things up about my position? Did I proffer any opinion at all on Reagan prior to your mentioning him and when you did mention him, I said that his foreign policy was atrocious, so why are you now insisting that I am a fan of his and approve of Iran Contra or think it's somehow less bad than stealing a chair..?
Also, why are you talking about Reagan and not HW who preceded Clinton anyway?
With these sorts of arguments based on specious whataboutery you make it impossible to debate. You also know that Bill Clinton is guilty of a lot worse than stealing a chair, I even gave you real proof that this was true as well and I never once said Bill is the only one culpable, but that he is culpable. The email I showed you speaks for itself?
Our countries (the US and the UK) have done unbelievably terrible things in the past, why must people always make excuses for our past conduct? I don't see the point?
Wow.
Where did I even begin to suggest such a thing? Why must you make things up about my position? Did I proffer any opinion at all on Reagan prior to your mentioning him and when you did mention him, I said that his foreign policy was atrocious, so why are you now insisting that I am a fan of his and approve of Iran Contra or think it's somehow less bad than stealing a chair..?
Also, why are you talking about Reagan and not HW who preceded Clinton anyway?
With these sorts of arguments based on specious whataboutery you make it impossible to debate. You also know that Bill Clinton is guilty of a lot worse than stealing a chair, I even gave you real proof that this was true as well and I never once said Bill is the only one culpable, but that he is culpable. The email I showed you speaks for itself?
Our countries (the US and the UK) have done unbelievably terrible things in the past, why must people always make excuses for our past conduct? I don't see the point?