Stable Genius Elon?

[Pete F.]

From the HOW LOW CAN ONE GO Department: On George Santos’ claims that his family was Jewish and fled Nazis during WWII: “‘I never claimed to be Jewish,’ he said. ‘I am Catholic. Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background, I said I was “JEW-ish.”’”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Santos is the defacto face of today's Republican Party. A pathological liar who justifies his actions with more lies and is proud of what he did. Proof that Republicans have no shame and will cheat and lie at any cost just to win.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

also wayne, on the tucker carlson show last night, that lying republican congressman-elect was taken out to the woodshed by guest host Tulsi Gabbard. She gutted him like a fish, which he deserved.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

also wayne, on the tucker carlson show last night, that lying republican congressman-elect was taken out to the woodshed by guest host Tulsi Gabbard. She gutted him like a fish, which he deserved.

But Republicans still wont do a thing... thats been my stance all along



a bit off topic but funny guess who said this and about who


I absolutely cannot stand this guy. Nothing but petty insults for everyone who disagrees with him. He's challenging their courage, for God's sake. Have we ever in our history, had a president so juvenile, so petty, so vindictive? THIS is the guy that was supposed to unite us?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

But Republicans still wont do a thing... thats been my stance all along



a bit off topic but funny guess who said this and about who


I absolutely cannot stand this guy. Nothing but petty insults for everyone who disagrees with him. He's challenging their courage, for God's sake. Have we ever in our history, had a president so juvenile, so petty, so vindictive? THIS is the guy that was supposed to unite us?

no, the republicans won’t do a thing.

how come you don’t care that democrats didn’t do a thing about lies told by Biden, Blumenthal, Hilary?

Why is it only concerning to you, when republicans lie to look better to voters?

That’s a key question. One you can’t answer.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

no, the republicans won’t do a thing.

how come you don’t care that democrats didn’t do a thing about lies told by Biden, Blumenthal, Hilary?

Why is it only concerning to you, when republicans lie to look better to voters?

That’s a key question. One you can’t answer.

I already answered that

Only you see lies as some how equal

You should learn what a white is

a harmless or trivial lie,

And what lying to voters to create a candidate that doesn’t exist
Most people call that Being a Fraud

a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
"mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds"

And the elephant in the room Jim
Biden and Blumenthal were not elected or re elected on because of their lie people were aware

With Santos that isn’t the case those who voted for him were unaware of his lies

However in the future if he last to re election and his constituents vote him back in . That’s their choice
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I already answered that

Only you see lies as some how equal

You should learn what a white is

a harmless or trivial lie,

And what lying to voters to create a candidate that doesn’t exist
Most people call that Being a Fraud


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re saying lies are ok if voters knew about them before the election. But how do YOU know what voters actually know, and what they don’t know? Since most of the media ignores anything wrong done by democrats, how are we to know what voters are actually aware of? Of course, somehow, you are aware that they all knew. You miraculously have insight into what voters knew when they voted.

And, since you’re saying lies don’t matter if voters knew about them beforehand, then you’re not saying this guy should get kicked out, right? you’re saying there should be another election so that voters, now aware of his lies, can decide if those lies matter?

“everything is ok when democrats do it.”

liberal hypocrisy, always something to behold.

[Pete F.]

Congressman-elect George Santos: “I’ve been to Moscow many times during my career..”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

All things are equal in right wing politics

George Santos pretended to be a gay Afro-Latino Ukrainian Brazilian Catholic Jew whose mother died on 9/11, whose ancestors survived the Holocaust, whose employees died in the Pulse club mass shooting, and whose net worth rose by millions overnight.

Am I missing anything?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Since most of the media ignores anything wrong done by democrats

Get out of the cult Jim
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Since most of the media ignores anything wrong done by democrats

Get out of the cult Jim
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

just explain why it’s ok when democrats lie to get elected, but a worse offense when a republican does it

accusing me of being in a cult, isn’t explaining the hypocrisy.

[wdmso]

I am Catholic," he told the Post. "Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background I said I was 'Jew-ish.'"

You can’t make this up.


Nassau County District Attorney Anne T. Donnelly, a Republican, said the fabrications and inconsistencies were "nothing short of stunning."

"The residents of Nassau County and other parts of the third district must have an honest and accountable representative in Congress," she gets it


As a candidate in 2020, in a filing to the U.S. House clerk, George Santos disclosed no assets or income — just that he’d been compensated in excess of $5,000 by LinkBridge Investors.

Two years later, in a filing ahead of a race he’d go on to win, Santos disclosed an apartment in Rio de Janeiro, checking and savings accounts and dividends from his eponymous Devolder Organization of between $1 million and $5 million.

That, in addition to a salary of three-quarters of a million dollars.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

I don't believe a business can loan a campaign money.

What will be a bridge too far that will cause the Rs to disown Santos? I think the only thing would be a video of him saying he believes Trump lost.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I don't believe a business can loan a campaign money.

What will be a bridge too far that will cause the Rs to disown Santos? I think the only thing would be a video of him saying he believes Trump lost.

👍🏻
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

This is where Trump has taken much of the R party:

When Rep.-Elect George Santos admitted that he “embellished” his “résumé” during his 2022 campaign, the New Yorker’s critics were quick to respond that his fabrications went way beyond embellishment. Santos (whose district includes parts of Queens and Long Island) claimed that his grandparents were Ukrainian Jews and Holocaust survivors, that he had an abundance of real estate assets, and that his mother was killed on 9/11 — none of which was true.

Regardless, some Republicans have been rushing to Santos’ defense, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. And Senate Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has been in no hurry to throw Santos under the bus, as he knows he will need Santos’ vote if he is going to be chosen as House speaker in 2023.

In a scathing column published by The Bulwark on December 28, Never Trump conservative Charlie Sykes emphasizes that the Santos scandal is not only an indictment of the congressman-elect, but underscores the GOP’s overall dysfunction.

“Embellished? I do not think that word means what the Talented Mr. Santos thinks it means,” Sykes explains. “To ‘embellish’ is to adorn, decorate, enhance, gild, beautify, and festoon — and on occasion, it means to ‘exaggerate.’ This Santos did not do. He just made s**t up out of whole cloth. He did not place doodads on his résumé: He lied about his schooling, his degrees, his background, his criminal history, his employment, and about the non-existent properties he claimed to own.”

The conservative columnist continues, “He lied that his employees were killed in the Pulse nightclub shooting. He lied about his Jew-ishness and about his grandparents escaping the Holocaust. He used fake quotes from Winston Churchill. He lied about his money, probably lied on financial disclosure forms — which is actually a crime — and lied about his lying. And then, having constructed this Babel of Fabulism, he turned to the playbook of disingenuous non-apologies.”

Sykes laments that because Santos is a Republican, he is getting a pass from other members of his party.

“Of course, a political party with any sort of intact immune system would move quickly to send this sociopath back to ScamLand, whence he came,” Sykes argues. “But this is the GOP circa 2022, and so, it faces a painful dilemma. With a narrow majority in the House, Republicans — and especially Kevin McCarthy — need his vote, of course. But that’s not the real problem here, is it?”

Sykes continues, “After years of ignoring, enabling and rationalizing Big Lies and small ones, it will now be exceedingly difficult for the GOP to find their misplaced conscience that might morph into outrage and something like a moral standard. As Nick Catoggio writes, ‘Anyone willing to set aside their qualms about Trump for the sake of holding executive power logically should be willing to set aside their qualms about Santos for the sake of holding legislative power.’ So, not surprisingly, GOP leaders are either silent, or in a forgiving mood.”

Greene, Sykes observes, is “all in” for Santos. After former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (an ex-Democrat turned independent) asked Santos some tough questions when filling in for Tucker Carlson on Fox News, Greene attacked her for showing “zero grace.” The far-right Georgia congresswoman tweeted, “I think we Republicans should give George Santos a chance and see how he legislates and votes, not treat him the same as the left is.”

Sykes laments, “The responsibility for this entire goat-rope lies with Santos and the GOP, but it’s worth noting that all of this should have been exposed before the election by the local media and Dem oppo research. Balls were dropped.”

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

This is where Trump has taken much of the R party:

When Rep.-Elect George Santos admitted that he “embellished” his “résumé” during his 2022 campaign, the New Yorker’s critics were quick to respond that his fabrications went way beyond embellishment. Santos (whose district includes parts of Queens and Long Island) claimed that his grandparents were Ukrainian Jews and Holocaust survivors, that he had an abundance of real estate assets, and that his mother was killed on 9/11 — none of which was true.

Regardless, some Republicans have been rushing to Santos’ defense, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. And Senate Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has been in no hurry to throw Santos under the bus, as he knows he will need Santos’ vote if he is going to be chosen as House speaker in 2023.

In a scathing column published by The Bulwark on December 28, Never Trump conservative Charlie Sykes emphasizes that the Santos scandal is not only an indictment of the congressman-elect, but underscores the GOP’s overall dysfunction.

“Embellished? I do not think that word means what the Talented Mr. Santos thinks it means,” Sykes explains. “To ‘embellish’ is to adorn, decorate, enhance, gild, beautify, and festoon — and on occasion, it means to ‘exaggerate.’ This Santos did not do. He just made s**t up out of whole cloth. He did not place doodads on his résumé: He lied about his schooling, his degrees, his background, his criminal history, his employment, and about the non-existent properties he claimed to own.”

The conservative columnist continues, “He lied that his employees were killed in the Pulse nightclub shooting. He lied about his Jew-ishness and about his grandparents escaping the Holocaust. He used fake quotes from Winston Churchill. He lied about his money, probably lied on financial disclosure forms — which is actually a crime — and lied about his lying. And then, having constructed this Babel of Fabulism, he turned to the playbook of disingenuous non-apologies.”

Sykes laments that because Santos is a Republican, he is getting a pass from other members of his party.

“Of course, a political party with any sort of intact immune system would move quickly to send this sociopath back to ScamLand, whence he came,” Sykes argues. “But this is the GOP circa 2022, and so, it faces a painful dilemma. With a narrow majority in the House, Republicans — and especially Kevin McCarthy — need his vote, of course. But that’s not the real problem here, is it?”

Sykes continues, “After years of ignoring, enabling and rationalizing Big Lies and small ones, it will now be exceedingly difficult for the GOP to find their misplaced conscience that might morph into outrage and something like a moral standard. As Nick Catoggio writes, ‘Anyone willing to set aside their qualms about Trump for the sake of holding executive power logically should be willing to set aside their qualms about Santos for the sake of holding legislative power.’ So, not surprisingly, GOP leaders are either silent, or in a forgiving mood.”

Greene, Sykes observes, is “all in” for Santos. After former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (an ex-Democrat turned independent) asked Santos some tough questions when filling in for Tucker Carlson on Fox News, Greene attacked her for showing “zero grace.” The far-right Georgia congresswoman tweeted, “I think we Republicans should give George Santos a chance and see how he legislates and votes, not treat him the same as the left is.”

Sykes laments, “The responsibility for this entire goat-rope lies with Santos and the GOP, but it’s worth noting that all of this should have been exposed before the election by the local media and Dem oppo research. Balls were dropped.”

why does santos deserve more than the punishment you’d give to democrats who lied/embellished, like our esteemed senator blumenthal, Biden, Princess Liz Warren, etc? Hilary lying about coming under sniper fire, that wasn’t a problem for democrats…

look, i’d say kick the guy out and have another election. but your side would never, ever agree that they need to be held to the same standard

Is there a specific reason why republican lies are more problematic than democrat lies?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

why does santos deserve more than the punishment you’d give to democrats who lied/embellished, like our esteemed senator blumenthal, Biden, Princess Liz Warren, etc? Hilary lying about coming under sniper fire, that wasn’t a problem for democrats…

look, i’d say kick the guy out and have another election. but your side would never, ever agree that they need to be held to the same standard

Is there a specific reason why republican lies are more problematic than democrat lies?

Well you use the same old few D lies and embelishments over and over and over again. The level of those same lies you use to try to tarnish Ds are not even close to the level and # of Trump or Santos. Trump/Santos have told dozens (Trump thousands) while the D lies you use are so few that you have to repeatedly use them. In addition, Trump, Biden, Warren and Blumenthal have all apologized. Trump prob. did but I must have missed it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Well you use the same old few lies and embelishments over and over and over again. The level of those same lies you use to try to tarnish Ds are not even close to the level of Trump or Santos.

why is the list of lies i cite not valid paul? because i’ve cited them more than once?

so using that logic, if you and wayne cite santos’ lies the same number of times, those lies no longer matter?

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.

Trump is in a category all by himself. We’re taking about santos.

the reason why i bring those lies up, is because you guys get all twisted in knots in a pathetic, humorous attempt to explain why those lies are so much more benign.

“everything is ok when democrats do it.”

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Well you use the same old few D lies and embelishments over and over and over again. The level of those same lies you use to try to tarnish Ds are not even close to the level and # of Trump or Santos. Trump/Santos have told dozens (Trump thousands) while the D lies you use are so few that you have to repeatedly use them.

so “a few lies”, at least when told by democrats, is acceptable.

What’s the maximum number of lies that are allowed, before we should start caring? do democrats get a larger number?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so “a few lies”, at least when told by democrats, is acceptable.

What’s the maximum number of lies that are allowed, before we should start caring? do democrats get a larger number?

Show me a D how "gets a larger number?"

Keep trying to comparing hundreds/thousands of lies with 1 or an embellishment and that is why we (I) can't take you seriously.

[wdmso]

Rep.-elect George Santos, R-N.Y., said his mother died in the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, but later said she died in December 2016.

Conservatives love that kind of stuff
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

paul this is just like the kids in cages at the border. it was totally ok when obama did it, but a crime against humanity when trump did the same exact thing, because according to you guys, trump did it more often. i asked 50 times how many times it’s ok to lock kids in cages before it’s evil, none of you even tried to answer.

[Jim in CT]

paul, i never claimed to be smart. so please point me to your post where you specified how many lies are allowed, and how you arrived at that number.

still waiting.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

paul, i never claimed to be smartBut you CONSTANTLY insult people's intelligence by calling them stupid and saying their posts are gibberish. So what does this say about you?. so please point me to your post where you specified how many lies are allowed, and how you arrived at that number.

still waiting.

Is your reading comprehension that bad?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Is your reading comprehension that bad?

it must be. in post #60, i asked you how many lies are allowed? nowhere after that,,do I see that you answered. You asked questions which i answered, and you lobbed some insults. But i can’t see where you specified how many lies are allowed and how many is too many, and how you arrived at that threshold.

So either my reading comprehension is very poor, or you’re the liar. if you answered i apologize but i don’t see it. i’m squinting at my phone while watching my oldest play hoops so maybe i messed it and maybe you chose to dodge.

“everything is ok when democrats do it. “

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it must be. in post #60, i asked you how many lies are allowed? nowhere after that,,don’t see that you answered.

So either my reading comprehension is very poor, or you’re the liar.

“everything is ok when democrats do it. “

there are a few posts where I explained to you. So it looks like your reading comprehension is very poor or you are intentionally lying.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

there are a few posts where I explained to you. So it looks like your reading comprehension is very poor or you are intentionally lying.

saying “the republican told too many, the democrat told less than the allied amount” is t explaining anything paul.
it’s an empty, self serving answer.

you never responded. but claimed you did. are you a scummy liar? or are you still below the allowable number?

this is fun.

[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?