Stable Genius Elon?

[Jim in CT]

Paul, now you claim to know that Santos benefitted from his lies, and you also know that Blumenthal didnt. Impressive mind reading there.

Halftime is over, in my sons game, this is a waste as usual. dodge, insult, dodge, insult, repeat…

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, now you claim to know that Santos benefitted from his lies,Are the Rs that shallow that they would elect someone with the lack of credentials of Santos? and you also know that Blumenthal l didnt. He already had an impressive resume, unlike Santos Impressive mind reading there.

Halftime is over, in my sons game, this is a waste as usual. dodge, insult, dodge, insult, repeat…

I answered your questions and also pointed out how you are a scummy person who lies and accuses someone of committing a crime when they know there was no law against it at the time.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I answered your questions and also pointed out how you are a scummy person who lies and accuses someone of committing a crime when they know there was no law against it at the time.

Where did you tell me how many lies are acceptable, and how many are too many?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

you are a scummy person who lies and accuses someone of committing a crime when they know there was no law against it at the time.

my first mention of the law and Blumenthal's crime...

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Blumenthals lie is far worse worse than anything santos said, which is exactly why today that lie is a crime. unless a democrat tells it, apparently. Gimme a break.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

my first mention of the law and Blumenthal's crime...

And then you repeatedly say it was a crime when you specifically know it was not a crime because there was no law at the time. And part of the law is that he has to benefit monetarily which he did not do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And then you repeatedly say it was a crime when you specifically know it was not a crime because there was no law at the time. And part of the law is that he has to benefit monetarily which he did not do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I said it "is" a crime. Today, it's a crime.

The proof is there in my first post on the topic, Paul, if that wasn't clear enough for you, then you need this stuff expressed in pop-up books.

I can argue Blumenthal did benefit from it. If you can assume Santos' lies helped his election, why can't I assume the same exact thing about Blumenthal? Just because Blumenthal is a democrat?