U.S. Rep.-elect George Santos (R-NY) lied to the voters, and WON the election. Should he be allowed to take office?

Borg Refinery said:
Where did I even begin to suggest such a thing?
Click to expand...
a) You're criticizing HRC.
b) You're NOT criticizing her because her boobs are way too small, or that she's a bottle blonde, etc. Your criticism regards politics. Thus politics is the context of your criticism. And in many such critical comments, the obvious contextualization is: compared to what?

It's not in the least clear to me why you have such a tenacious, resolute aversion to context, ridiculing and dismissing it with message-board insult slang, "whataboutery". Thus: a lesson in context.

Binaries are the textbook example.
- Can we fully understand what hot means, without understanding cold?
- Can we fully understand what up means, without understanding down?
- etc
In sport it may not matter as much. "He won an Olympic gold medal" indicates he has excelled. Many need not be informed or reminded, gold is better than bronze. BUT !! In politics, the context must be specified. *

Anyone that doubts the significance of context may need to be reminded: doughnut holes are DEFINED by context.
Borg Refinery said:
Did I proffer any opinion at all on Reagan prior to your mentioning him
Click to expand...
Correct. I do not recall any significant context you introduced. You didn't, thus leaving it to me. You're welcome.

PS
Previously issue was made of me implying or mentioning the spectrum on which an issue may lay. The implication was that I was comparing? I was sleep deprived then. A good night's sleep has restored. Identifying its location on the spectrum might seem a comparison, more precisely, identifying what is analogous. I prefer to think of it as akin to ranking. For obvious example, on basis of how many humans he killed, Hitler was worse than my Dad. Such contextualization seems to revile you. Might want to talk with a professional about it.

* SCOTUS recently usurped women's choice. Democrats recognize this as a human rights atrocity. Republicans herald it as the crowning judicial achievement of the 3rd millennium. Please consider upgrading your parochial view of context.
 
How on earth does describing one tiny portion of your post as 'whataboutery' constitute 'message board insult slang'..? You've completely lost me here.

The fact that Hillary is less terrible than Ronald Reagan does not mean she should have been the Dem nominee for 2016, or held any important positions of state just because she's less bad than Reagan, the idea that because she didn't fund Contras in Iran, she is somehow an acceptable politician is ludicrous beyond all belief.

When the Dems have people like Obama and even more recently, fairly half-reasonable people like Amy Klobuchar (just for example) are you really going to continue defending Hillary Clinton's misconduct while in office just because she represented your state? She represents the worst instincts of the party IMHO along with Biden and several others, like Diane Feinstein. I do not think they have any business in the party anymore, it's time for a new generation to take the reins and make the party a little better. The R party is due for some new blood as well, there are good conservatives with real conservative values who BELONG in that party, not Trumpist or DeSantis QAnut (sic)ophants.

The evidence I've presented to you in other posts wrt Hillary really speaks for itself IMHO and I submit that this is the end of the conversation, for my part anyway.
 
Borg Refinery said:
the idea that because she didn't fund Contras in Iran, she is somehow an acceptable politician is ludicrous beyond all belief.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
I never made any such suggestion. Instead:
- You cited an example you perceived to support your opinion of HRC "She was pretty terrible in every position she's ever held." BR #35
So to contextualize your example of "terrible" I cited the counter example of the Republican demigod, President Reagan. I can not imagine such contextualization is anything other than both rational and standard in BBS, at least the better ones.

Broad point being:
It's standard to accept that the topics a person introduces, both @BBS, and in more conventional conversation, is what's on their mind, what they deem important enough to mention. You seemed to think condemning Hillary was important enough for you to post.

Fair enough.

Such profanity free opinion is welcome here. BUT !! Such opinion is NOT immune from discussion, including critical analysis.
"are you really going to continue defending Hillary Clinton's misconduct while in office just because she represented your state?" BR
Click to expand...
Important to distinguish here between what I've posted, and my motive for posting it. For example: "just because she represented your state?" BR

Those are ENTIRELY your words. I don't recall ever having asserted that, or even thinking it for that matter. Truth is, I'm a native born New Yorker. Hillary is a carpetbagger. You seem not to understand the following so I'll attempt one more time to explain it.
Praise from a friend, an ally may be flattering. But generally it must be considered with skepticism. BUT !!
When such praise is from a vehement, dedicated, world-class opponent, such praise is at very least to be considered as honest, sincere, valid. Not simple friendly pap.
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
Click to expand...
You think they're lying? You think they're embellishing? You think they're misrepresenting? Why? Because she owes them $5, and they think she won't pay them back unless they flatter her on national television?
To my knowledge these comments, this praise (would you object if I called it "lavish" praise?) were substantially unsolicited.

Until I have rational reason to distrust these Republican comments I will continue to perceive them as sincere. Further, I respect Gingrich's authority on such matters. Gingrich wasn't merely an MOC. He was House Speaker. That's #2 in the order of presidential succession, number one after the VP.
Borg Refinery said:
she didn't fund Contras in Iran
Click to expand...
No one did. The Contras were rebels in Nicaragua.
 
71c0d26337154f20b7c190854ec69a63_md.png


www.tmz.com

Rep. George Santos Denies Drag Queen Past After Ex-Friend Posts 2008 Photo

Rep. George Santos has yet another past alias, at least according to an ex-friend in Brazil who's posted a photo of him in drag ... which is interesting because Santos has spoken out against drag shows in America.
www.tmz.com www.tmz.com

George Santos denies report that he was a drag queen — despite his ex-friend releasing photos​

“He was always such a liar,” former drag queen acquaintances said of Santos, who reportedly went by Kitara Ravache​

www.salon.com

Santos denies report that he was a drag queen — as pal releases photos

“He was always such a liar,” former drag queen acquaintances said of Santos, who reportedly went by Kitara Ravache.
www.salon.com www.salon.com
Click to expand...
 

"despite his ex-friend releasing photos" S2 #44​

Of whom?


1674166452089.png


1674166396327.png

I can't tell if they're the same guy. BUT !!
If so, I think red is a good color for him.

- do you suppose s/he's available tomorrow night? -
- if so, who pays for dinner? -
 
Shiftless2 said:
71c0d26337154f20b7c190854ec69a63_md.png


www.tmz.com

Rep. George Santos Denies Drag Queen Past After Ex-Friend Posts 2008 Photo

Rep. George Santos has yet another past alias, at least according to an ex-friend in Brazil who's posted a photo of him in drag ... which is interesting because Santos has spoken out against drag shows in America.
www.tmz.com www.tmz.com
Click to expand...
I think I posted this already in post #36

If true, it would not be the first and probably won't be the last R to be caught doing that which they accuse others of doing..
 
sear said:
Agreed.
I never made any such suggestion. Instead:
- You cited an example you perceived to support your opinion of HRC "She was pretty terrible in every position she's ever held." BR #35
So to contextualize your example of "terrible" I cited the counter example of the Republican demigod, President Reagan. I can not imagine such contextualization is anything other than both rational and standard in BBS, at least the better ones.

Broad point being:
It's standard to accept that the topics a person introduces, both @BBS, and in more conventional conversation, is what's on their mind, what they deem important enough to mention. You seemed to think condemning Hillary was important enough for you to post.

Fair enough.

Such profanity free opinion is welcome here. BUT !! Such opinion is NOT immune from discussion, including critical analysis.

Important to distinguish here between what I've posted, and my motive for posting it. For example: "just because she represented your state?" BR

Those are ENTIRELY your words. I don't recall ever having asserted that, or even thinking it for that matter. Truth is, I'm a native born New Yorker. Hillary is a carpetbagger. You seem not to understand the following so I'll attempt one more time to explain it.
Praise from a friend, an ally may be flattering. But generally it must be considered with skepticism. BUT !!
When such praise is from a vehement, dedicated, world-class opponent, such praise is at very least to be considered as honest, sincere, valid. Not simple friendly pap.

You think they're lying? You think they're embellishing? You think they're misrepresenting? Why? Because she owes them $5, and they think she won't pay them back unless they flatter her on national television?
To my knowledge these comments, this praise (would you object if I called it "lavish" praise?) were substantially unsolicited.

Until I have rational reason to distrust these Republican comments I will continue to perceive them as sincere. Further, I respect Gingrich's authority on such matters. Gingrich wasn't merely an MOC. He was House Speaker. That's #2 in the order of presidential succession, number one after the VP.

No one did. The Contras were rebels in Nicaragua.
Click to expand...
That was indeed a bizarre mistype on my part - Contras in Iran. The effects of trying to give up coffee?

It was probably a mental mixup as I was thinking of the Iran-Iraq war supported by Reagan (on the side of Saddam), another horrifying foreign policy blunder, but you're right in any case about that mistake on my part. Don't forget the continued Afghanistan war throughout the 1980s and the support for the mass child abusing Mujahideen also, there are countless other things, the Grenadan invasion as well perhaps? His support for the JLP vs the PNP in Jamaica and the bloody almost-civil war over there in garrison communities..? His trade war against the Japanese?

On the other hand, he took a firm hand against Apartheid in ZA - and his other actions helped bring about the end of the Soviet Union.

But I'm glad you see Hillary as a carpetbagger. IMHO she was a deeply ineffective politician too and Newt Gingrich tends to be wrong about everything ever - nothing he says can be trusted. Why would you trust a word that man says?

The truth is that Newt Gingrich in many ways was the precursor to Trumpism during the 'R revolution' in 1994. he began accusing them all of being paedophile demons (etc etc) just like modern QAnon nut-nuts. The guy ushered in a new era of hostility and idiotic partisan hatred.
 
Last edited:
Ah, don't forget his and Thatcher's support for Pinochet. Wasn't most of the turmoil in Somalia also initiated around the 1980-s as well leading to the infamous 'black hawk down' incident around 1993 when US troops got more formally involved around the early 1990s or have I got that wildly wrong? I simply can't remember enough about it. Then there's Angola although we in the UK also sent troops in 1975 originally - but I think Reagan expanded US involvement there after he attained power from 1980 onwards.

Then there's the Hmong fighters in Laos, who are still exiled in the jungle and fighting for their life after being abandoned by the CIA_ according to a documentary I watched years ago on Deutsche Welle. There are other nations mentioned as part of the Reagan doctrine according to sources online: "it was the Heritage Foundation that translated theory into concrete policy. Heritage targeted nine nations for rollback: Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, Libya, Nicaragua, and Vietnam".[6]

I know little about US involvement in the other nations around Reagan's period, but suffice to say the US wanted an iron tight grip over the entire world back then and manipulated both allies (like Japan with their trade wars) and foes alike. I was also reading about bombings initiated in Libya in 1986, something I knew precious little about until just now. I think I remember him also having a hand in one of the Thai coups in the 1980s also, although that country has had so many coups it's easy to lose track.

Yikes, sometimes, the Monroe doctrine doesn't seem like such a bad idea after all.
 
Last edited:
S2 #49
This is a moral / ethical abyss. There is no bottom.

- Santos' misconduct disgraces Santos.

- The Republicans keeping Santos in their party disgraces the Republican party.

S2 #50
There's some stuff I don't need to see. Might want to put a content warning on that. - uugghh lee -
!
qui tacet, consentire videtur: He who is silent implies consent.
Click to expand...
 
sear said:
S2 #50
There's some stuff I don't need to see. Might want to put a content warning on that. - uugghh lee -
Click to expand...
No need - hardly moves the meter on the "inappropriate scale". But them I'm pretty hard to embarrass (or whatever term applies in a case like this)
 
S2 #52
Perhaps with intensive therapy I may begin to recover from the trauma some day,
if I live long enough.

Any
way:

Not trying to switch horses in the middle of the river. BUT !!

In my (no pun intended) broad condemnation of Santos it may seem I'm condemning all cross-dressing.
Truth is I don't care for it. BUT !! In many cases I don't condemn it on moral basis. It's no more complicated than English imposes gender distinctions, Mr. & Mrs. for obvious example. And using the wrong one can seem to be, can be misinterpreted as a gratuitous insult.

I consider the Santos cross-dressing an issue because he's a Republican member of congress. And Republicans often present themselves as moral arbiters. So it bears the appearance of hypocrisy, even if there's a link or two of that chain missing. There are enough pieces of the puzzle present to make a coherent picture. And as I've already observed, not a pretty picture at all. Thus, it's not purely the transvestism. It's the hypocrisy of being a member of a judgemental political party, and also being party to conduct likely to earn public scorn from his fellow Republicans, except when it's a fellow Republican.

The talking heads shows start broadcast in about 12 hours. We'll see what Santos' fellow Republicans have to say about it, if anything.
 
"Santos comes from a great tradition of N.Y. liars, from Anthony Weiner to Donald Trump. But every day he remains in Congress proves that the GOP not only tolerates liars, but rewards them"

www.nydailynews.com

Republican liars go far beyond George Santos

“Honesty is such a lonely word.” As the great Billy Joel once sang, “Everyone is so untrue.” That could be the anthem for this modern era, when liars and lying are not only tolerated, but rewarded for their artful deception.
www.nydailynews.com www.nydailynews.com
 
Shiftless2 said:
a great tradition of N.Y. liars, ... the GOP not only tolerates liars, but rewards them" S2 #54
Click to expand...
And not just a few power-hungry Republicans in congress.
For a minority of a minority of Republicans outside of congress elected Trump in the first place. Trump has demonstrated himself to be a consummate liar. And if recent reports are correct, Trump is the only Republican that has announced his intention to run for president in 2024. Pence reportedly considering an announcement to run against Trump.
How's that for a Hobson's choice?
 

George Santos Fraudulent Signature Could Be Final Nail in Coffin​

By James Bickerton On 1/26/23 at 6:25 AM EST

George Santos has been accused of listing a man as his campaign financier against his wishes and using his signature without consent, in the latest controversy to hit the New York House Republican.
On Tuesday Santos filed an updated campaign finance report with the Federal Election Commission, in which Thomas Datwyler, an experienced campaign financial consultant, was listed as his new treasurer, with the filing signed with his name.
However, speaking to ABC News Datwyler's attorney, Derek Ross, said Santos had been informed Datwyler wouldn't be taking the position on Monday.

www.newsweek.com

George Santos fraudulent signature could be final nail in coffin

Those who served Santos' campaign as treasurers have been advised to "get lawyers."
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
 
He's a creep. No law against that I suppose (unless deliberately misrepresenting to fraudulently win an election).
He's also a crook. The law against that is what the DOJ is attending to.

What I'd like to know is, of what party will Santos' replacement be?

PS
Santos reportedly used many different aliases. But he was elected to office as "George Santos".
a) Does he have a birth certificate with that name on it?
b) If he can't prove his legal name is the name he was elected to office with, what's his legal claim to the office? That office belongs to "George Santos", not an imposter (even if it's him?).
 

Controversial Republican George Santos says he will not serve on House committees – live​

New York congressman who made up elements of his life story to step aside pending campaign and personal financial investigations
www.theguardian.com

Controversial Republican George Santos says he will not serve on House committees – live

New York congressman who made up elements of his life story to step aside pending campaign and personal financial investigations
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

I suspect some overdue Republican leadership arm-twisting.
 
s #59
CBS corroborates.
What I don't yet know is whether it was the new Republican Speaker that took the initiative, or ... .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top