Finally Draining the Swamp

bullskin

bullskin

Very Active Member
Messages
1,341
I was a bit disappointed to see that most Republicans refused to expel Santos, but enough did that my faith in the party is somewhat restored. Unfortunately, leadership and those who complain loudest about draining the swamp did not step up, and those who did are already being branded as "RINOs" for not supporting "their own." Perhaps this is a first step toward the return of my old Republican Party-the one that Reagan would have liked, and one that would have liked Reagan. Now, if the DOJ can convict Menendez, then neither "team" will lose, and every American will be better off, although I have no doubt that there will be plenty without integrity on both sides that will leap to the rescue of their man.
 
Last edited:
I would not have expelled him...yet. Would have waited for a conviction. By all accounts he's a fat sleazeball and an overall lying sack of sh*t. But, I have to agree with Matt Gaetz on this one and wait for a conviction.

The Senate didn't do sh*t with Menendez and as ugly as his charges are--he's been acquitted once already about 10 years ago. On the miniscule chance that meatball Santos is found innocent--whoops; a do-over??? And Jamaal Bowman; hell if he was a R, they'd have put up his gravestone already with that fire alarm BS.
 
I don't believe a conviction is necessary. The Constitution provides that each branch of Congress should police its own and "punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." The House rules require that the Ethics Committee investigate accusations and make recommendations based upon their findings, which they did when they recommended the expulsion of Santos. It is very clear that the Constitution invites Congress to expel members even without conviction by the courts, which make sense considering that the Founders preferred not to subjugate Congress to the will of the Courts except as necessary.

As for Bowman, I wonder too why the House Ethics Committee has not taken stronger action. Perhaps because one of their own party let protesters into the Capitol on January 6 and they do not want the favor returned. As far as I am concerned, they should both be tossed. It is not as if there is any shortage of aspiring Congressmen! As for Menendez, I can only say that action against him is a vote of confidence in the DOJ. Clearly, neither party in Congress has the guts to take sufficient action against its own.
 
Last edited:
D's won't help R's, but hell, R's will help D's any old day and give them a freebie because they "hold themselves to a higher standard." Just ask ol' Mitt.

Many, many sleazeballs in congress.
 
bullskin said:
I don't believe a conviction is necessary. The Constitution provides that each branch of Congress should police its own and "punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." The House rules require that the Ethics Committee investigate accusations and make recommendations based upon their findings, which they did when they recommended the expulsion of Santos. It is very clear that the Constitution invites Congress to expel members even without conviction by the courts, which make sense considering that the Founders preferred not to subjugate Congress to the will of the Courts except as necessary.

As for Bowman, I wonder too why the House Ethics Committee has not taken stronger action. Perhaps because one of their own party let protesters into the Capitol on January 6 and they do not want the favor returned. As far as I am concerned, they should both be tossed. It is not as if there is any shortage of aspiring Congressmen! As for Menendez, I can only say that action against him is a vote of confidence in the DOJ. Clearly, neither party in Congress has the guts to take sufficient action against its own.
Click to expand...


You don't wonder. You willfully ignore the reason, but you don't wonder.

Only in America can a congressman, on tape, interfere with an official proceeding(the charges brought against hundreds on Jan 6), get a wrist slap, then vote on expelling another member.


And, bullskin will see it with his own eyes, and then revert back to Reagan, or "both guilty".

No. Bowman IS GUILTY. Santos is charged. And while both SHOULD be gone, it's not a mystery as to why only Santos is

Any more than the mystery of why Marjorie Greene had her committee assignments removed, while Talib and Omar do not.

Republicans are spineless losers. The fall back position is to lose.

The Dems, don't give a flying f*** what the rules are,they play to win, so they win.
 
When's the Bob Menedez expulsion vote?

Oh, that's right, he's a D.

The R will weaken their house control to toss Santos, but in a 51-49 senate, Menedez stays.

I'm sure Shumer will determine Mendez "deserves his day in court", knowing they can delay that day through Menedez term.

They ain't about to give up the majority, especially with Manchin out there wanting to make a splash in his way out.


The Dems play to win, so they win


The R play to lose gracefully(Romney) so they lose.

Ain't no conspiracy
 
hossblur said:
You don't wonder. You willfully ignore the reason, but you don't wonder.

Only in America can a congressman, on tape, interfere with an official proceeding(the charges brought against hundreds on Jan 6), get a wrist slap, then vote on expelling another member.


And, bullskin will see it with his own eyes, and then revert back to Reagan, or "both guilty".

No. Bowman IS GUILTY. Santos is charged. And while both SHOULD be gone, it's not a mystery as to why only Santos is

Any more than the mystery of why Marjorie Greene had her committee assignments removed, while Talib and Omar do not.

Republicans are spineless losers. The fall back position is to lose.

The Dems, don't give a flying f*** what the rules are,they play to win, so they win.
Click to expand...
👆, truth right there.

I'm with Gaetz on this in principle and would have said that we will vote to expel Santos when the dems do the same to Bowman, their terrorist sympathizers, and Mendez...all the way to the top of the pile, Biden.

I'd love to see a movement start where those who support R's say we will not vote for an incumbent until they start doing what we vote them in to do. Get a f*ucking spine you p.o.s. R's!! The R's are no better, and mostly worse than D's. At least you know what to expect from the D's, but the R's just stab in the back and keep pissing away this country.

The older I get the more I truly believe it's just one party putting on a show and trading power every once in a while to keep the show going.
 
Didn't have Fetterman having bigger balls than the entirety of R house leadership on my bingo card. Not just on this issue.
nypost.com

Sen. Bob Menendez ‘much more sinister’ than George Santos: Fetterman

Sen. John Fetterman said Friday that he was “not surprised” by the House vote to expel former Rep. George Santos, but was more concerned with the allegations against Sen. Bob Menendez.
nypost.com nypost.com
 
Fettermans mental issues must stop his filtering ability. He's right. He's right on Israel too. And I believe a lot of Dems agree but the principle isn't fairness, or law, the principle is winning so they shut up and fight for the W.
 
"I wonder" is sarcasm. You do not need to tell me they should both be gone--I just said it myself. Your are preaching to the choir when it comes to holding folks accountable--except that I am willing to hold both parties to account whereas you will always excuse Trump and his minions. I am completely on board with investigating and trying every one of those you have mentioned. Where we differ is that I am content to follow the Constitution when it comes to meting out justice, whereas you will not be content unless your own biases are satisified.
 
TDS means inserting Trump for no reason.

What in the hell does Santos or Bowman have to do with Trump?

Honestly. Is your screen protector worn out at the T R U M P spots?..Do you brush your teeth in the morning first, or say Trump?

I believe in the Constitution too. NY voters sent Santos to Congress. He's not convicted, yet, NY voters should get to remove him.
 
It is not about Trump, it is about you. The commonality between these and every other post you make or respond to is your undying defense of Trump and criticism of everyone who disagrees with him. It was entirely predictable that you would criticize Bowman since he is a democrat, yet you cannot bring yourself to demand justice for anyone on the MAGA team who is guilty of similar criminal behavior. All deserve criticism, and if Bowman deserves to be tossed, then certainly Santos, Menendez and Trump deserve the same.

If you "believe" in the Constitution, then you would support it. It is not Santa Claus, to be "believed," or not. And the Constitution charges both chambers of Congress with policing their own and ejecting those members who they judge unfit. The House has rules to determine consequences for unfit behavior, and these were followed. What makes you think that it should not act as directed by the Constitution? The Constitution does not ask Congress to await conviction, and the Framers had very good reasons not to subjugate the action of Congress to such a decision by the Court. What makes you believe that Congress should not have that power? Regardless, it does.
 
Last edited:
bullskin said:
It is not about Trump, it is about you. The commonality between these and every other post you make or respond to is your undying defense of Trump and criticism of everyone who disagrees with him. It was entirely predictable that you would criticize Bowman since he is a democrat, yet you cannot bring yourself to demand justice for anyone on the MAGA team who is guilty of similar criminal behavior. All deserve criticism, and if Bowman deserves to be tossed, then certainly Santos, Menendez and Trump deserve the same.

If you "believe" in the Constitution, then you would support it. It is not Santa Claus, to be "believed," or not. And the Constitution charges both chambers of Congress with policing their own and ejecting those members who they judge unfit. The House has rules to determine consequences for unfit behavior, and these were followed. What makes you think that it should not act as directed by the Constitution? The Constitution does not ask Congress to await conviction, and the Framers had very good reasons not to subjugate the action of Congress to such a decision by the Court. What makes you believe that Congress should not have that power? Regardless, it does.
Click to expand...
I see you conveniently forgot to mention Biden in your rant? He and his son are probably the most corrupt of any mentioned and should be in the conversation, no? Why no mention of Myorkas? Garland? What about Swallowell? What about Wray? What about Schiff? Want me to keep going? I can do this all day
 
Flyjunky12 said:
I see you conveniently forgot to mention Biden in your rant? He and his son are probably the most corrupt of any mentioned and should be in the conversation, no? Why no mention of Myorkas? Garland? What about Swallowell? What about Wray? What about Schiff? Want me to keep going? I can do this all day
Click to expand...


The fact that we can do this all day is the reason I do not mention every criminal in government. You do not hear me defend them though, do you? In fact, you just read as I condemned Dems as well as Republicans. And that is the difference between me and those who use the crimes of one party to excuse the crimes of the other.
 
hossblur said:
And, bullskin will see it with his own eyes, and then revert back to Reagan, or "both guilty".

No. Bowman IS GUILTY. Santos is charged. And while both SHOULD be gone, it's not a mystery as to why only Santos is
Click to expand...

Bowman is guilty. He confessed before it became necessary to prove his guilt in court.

Santos is guilty. He was provided due process, as provided for by the Constitution, and his jurors on the House Ethics Committee found him guilty and recommended expulsion. How can you not know that the courts are not the only body in the land charged with meting out punishment to the guilty, yet still appear here every day pretending that you know what the hell is going on?
 
bullskin said:
Bowman is guilty. He confessed before it became necessary to prove his guilt in court.

Santos is guilty. He was provided due process, as provided for by the Constitution, and his jurors on the House Ethics Committee found him guilty and recommended expulsion. How can you not know that the courts are not the only body in the land charged with meting out punishment to the guilty, yet still appear here every day pretending that you know what the hell is going on?
Click to expand...


BULLSHIT ! Your lying on both cases



Bowman, on tape, said he was trying to open a door. It wasn't until the video of him pulling the alarm was made public that he admitted it.

He didn't confess anything, he got caught on tape interfering with a floor vote.

Further. Your just LYING on Santos. The ethics committee DID NOT recommended expulsion.

"The House Ethics Committee in a report released Thursday said there is clear evidence that Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) committed serious crimes, though it stopped short of recommending formal sanctions, as some had hoped it would do.- The Hill



Wrong on both, lying on both.

Who doesn't know what's going on?
 
bullskin said:
The fact that we can do this all day is the reason I do not mention every criminal in government. You do not hear me defend them though, do you? In fact, you just read as I condemned Dems as well as Republicans. And that is the difference between me and those who use the crimes of one party to excuse the crimes of the other.
Click to expand...
For once, maybe, I might agree with portions of what you said there but......let's make one thing clear. Santos will be gone, what about all those other people I mentioned? Why aren't they gone as well? Seems to me a bunch of R's actually went along with getting Santos out. Where are all the D's going along with R's to get those D's I mentioned out of office? Why are the D's going to put Biden back on the ballot when he is THE MOST CORRUPT president in current era? It starts at the top. If you are not calling for Biden to be impeached but cheering on the trials for Trump....you're a complete hypocrite and I have a hard time believing any of this equal justice you spew.
 
bullskin, being the fair minded above average Conservative please list the reasons you'd like to see Biden impeached. How many Democrats in both houses would vote guilty?
 
hossblur said:
BULLSHIT ! Your lying on both cases



Bowman, on tape, said he was trying to open a door. It wasn't until the video of him pulling the alarm was made public that he admitted it.

He didn't confess anything, he got caught on tape interfering with a floor vote.

Further. Your just LYING on Santos. The ethics committee DID NOT recommended expulsion.

"The House Ethics Committee in a report released Thursday said there is clear evidence that Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) committed serious crimes, though it stopped short of recommending formal sanctions, as some had hoped it would do.- The Hill



Wrong on both, lying on both.

Who doesn't know what's going on?
Click to expand...

I have written that Bowman confessed before it became necessary to take him to court. The very link you provided includes the following statement by Bowman: "I am embarrassed to admit that I activated the fire alarm, mistakenly thinking it would open the door." This admission was made before court action and, at least in the minds of the House Committee on Ethics, obviated the need for any such action because it was a clear admission of guilt, so how you have reached the conclusion that I have lied about this confession I do not know. Certainly, this admission came under pressure, but unless you are trying to argue that it cannot be a "confession" because it came only under pressure, then I do not see the hair you are trying to split. I have plainly stated my own opinion that he should be expelled--even if it is only because he is too stupid to know the difference between a door handle and a fire alarm.

Statement of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ethics Regarding Representative George Santos

Pursuant to House Rule XI Clause 3(q)(1), today the Chairman of the Committee on Ethics, Representative Michael Guest, and the Ranking Member, Representative Susan Wild, submitted a report to the House of Representatives in the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative George Santos. The...
ethics.house.gov ethics.house.gov

I have attached the link to the statement issued by the House Committee on Ethics upon conclusion of its investigation of George Santos. It reads:

"The ISC [Investigative Subcommittee] unanimously concluded that there was substantial evidence that Representative George Santos: knowingly caused his campaign committee to file false or incomplete reports with the Federal Election Commission; used campaign funds for personal purposes; engaged in fraudulent conduct in connection with RedStone Strategies LLC; and engaged in knowing and willful violations of the Ethics in Government Act as it relates to his Financial Disclosure (FD) Statements filed with the House. In light of the ongoing criminal investigation into Representative Santos, and the ISC’s findings of additional uncharged and unlawful conduct by Representative Santos, the ISC recommended that the Committee immediately refer these allegations to the Department of Justice."

If Santos' referral to the DOJ by the Ethics Committee does not rise to the level of "formal sanctions," then I do not know what does.
 
hossblur said:
I believe in the Constitution too. NY voters sent Santos to Congress. He's not convicted, yet, NY voters should get to remove him.
Click to expand...

Still wondering. Why do you say you support the Constitution, yet suggest that voters, not Congress, should throw him out when it clearly has been given that right, and it is certainly the right thing to do?
 
Last edited:
Bullskin.........he was convicted of no crime...yet. Your logic says that if a single party were to achieve a 2/3 advantage in congress .....they could expel the entire opposition party.....simply on accusations of bad things....
 
bullskin said:
I have written that Bowman confessed before it became necessary to take him to court. The very link you provided includes the following statement by Bowman: "I am embarrassed to admit that I activated the fire alarm, mistakenly thinking it would open the door." This admission was made before court action and, at least in the minds of the House Committee on Ethics, obviated the need for any such action because it was a clear admission of guilt, so how you have reached the conclusion that I have lied about this confession I do not know. Certainly, this admission came under pressure, but unless you are trying to argue that it cannot be a "confession" because it came only under pressure, then I do not see the hair you are trying to split. I have plainly stated my own opinion that he should be expelled--even if it is only because he is too stupid to know the difference between a door handle and a fire alarm.

Statement of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ethics Regarding Representative George Santos

Pursuant to House Rule XI Clause 3(q)(1), today the Chairman of the Committee on Ethics, Representative Michael Guest, and the Ranking Member, Representative Susan Wild, submitted a report to the House of Representatives in the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative George Santos. The...
ethics.house.gov ethics.house.gov

I have attached the link to the statement issued by the House Committee on Ethics upon conclusion of its investigation of George Santos. It reads:

"The ISC [Investigative Subcommittee] unanimously concluded that there was substantial evidence that Representative George Santos: knowingly caused his campaign committee to file false or incomplete reports with the Federal Election Commission; used campaign funds for personal purposes; engaged in fraudulent conduct in connection with RedStone Strategies LLC; and engaged in knowing and willful violations of the Ethics in Government Act as it relates to his Financial Disclosure (FD) Statements filed with the House. In light of the ongoing criminal investigation into Representative Santos, and the ISC’s findings of additional uncharged and unlawful conduct by Representative Santos, the ISC recommended that the Committee immediately refer these allegations to the Department of Justice."

If Santos' referral to the DOJ by the Ethics Committee does not rise to the level of "formal sanctions," then I do not know what does.
Click to expand...


Mealy mouth bs.

Bowman, a former high school principal, who knows better than to pull fire alarms, initially stated he didn t pull the alarm. Then tape emerged showing he did in fact. So his next statement(confession) was that he didn't know it was a fire alarm.

Next, capitol police contradicted that story

“USCP officers had previously placed signs with clear language that explained the door was secured and marked as an emergency exit only.”

So, on try #3, he finally admitted what he had done.

Not quite the "confession" you claimed



As to Santos
I'm quoting YOU

The House rules require that the Ethics Committee investigate accusations and make recommendations based upon their findings, which they did when they recommended the expulsion of Santos.

Now, when challenged on your obvious lie, you try to spin referral to DOJ as being the same as "recommended the expulsion of Santos"

That's not splitting hairs. Referral for criminal charges, and recommended expulsion, ARE NOT THE SAME, nor are they even executed by the same body.

Expulsion is done in the House .

Criminal charges, are not.


Go ahead

You got caught
 
bullskin said:
Still wondering. Why do you say you support the Constitution, yet suggest that voters, not Congress, should throw him out when it clearly has been given that right, and it is certainly the right thing to do?
Click to expand...

Right thing according to who? You? Pretty sure the constitution talks about due process as well? Remind me again what he is CONVICTED OF?

It's been used 15 times in the countries history. 14 times during civil war. The Supreme court has discussed the necessity for this to be very rare, so as to not alienate the voters. So short of a conviction, no, the house should not overrule the voters.
 
Flyjunky12 said:
For once, maybe, I might agree with portions of what you said there but......let's make one thing clear. Santos will be gone, what about all those other people I mentioned? Why aren't they gone as well? Seems to me a bunch of R's actually went along with getting Santos out. Where are all the D's going along with R's to get those D's I mentioned out of office? Why are the D's going to put Biden back on the ballot when he is THE MOST CORRUPT president in current era? It starts at the top. If you are not calling for Biden to be impeached but cheering on the trials for Trump....you're a complete hypocrite and I have a hard time believing any of this equal justice you spew.
Click to expand...

Ds and Rs both did the right thing in tossing Santos, in my opinion. Justice should not be subordinated to politics. As for Dems, I am not in the business of defending them, but I will attach one link since you asked. If it is to be believed, it lists the Democrat Senators (nearly half of the Dems in the Senate, as of its publication date) who have called for Menendez to resign. It is weak sauce compared to calling for his ouster from Congress and they will have to live with themselves for this. It is, nevertheless, far better than denying the facts, as have become common for many in both parties.

As for Biden, I have no doubt that he will be impeached-and I welcome this investigation. I have always said that there is no investigation not worth having when legitimate questions are brought to bear. I supported investigations of Trump and I will support investigations of Biden, simply because I believe Americans deserve the facts. Trump's impeachment, for example, exposed liars, cheats and crooks on both sides of the aisle, and I am glad for that. Investigations into Trump's claims of election theft demonstrated that even the mouthpieces of Fox who repeated these claims recognized them to be false and now refuse to stand behind them. America needed to hear this. And if claims against Biden are true, then I have no doubt that they will be held up for the world to see and we shall all be better for it. That said, I am not here to support any man, or side. The comments I make (unless cranky or tired) are intended to expose the truth where I believe it is intentionally obscured by either.
 
eelgrass said:
bullskin, being the fair minded above average Conservative please list the reasons you'd like to see Biden impeached. How many Democrats in both houses would vote guilty?
Click to expand...

There is only one reason why I would like to see Biden investigated--and this should be the case for everyone. It is to determine whether or not the facts support the accusations leveled against him. As for impeachment, it would be irresponsible to expect or demand this before any such investigation is conducted and the facts are known. Is that what you are calling for? Immediate impeachment without presentation of evidence by both sides?
 
bullskin said:
There is only one reason why I would like to see Biden investigated--and this should be the case for everyone. It is to determine whether or not the facts support the accusations leveled against him. As for impeachment, it would be irresponsible to expect or demand this before any such investigation is conducted and the facts are known. Is that what you are calling for? Immediate impeachment without presentation of evidence by both sides?
Click to expand...
lmmfao........not a peep from you after the Trump/Zelensky phone cal....
 
hossblur said:
Right thing according to who? You? Pretty sure the constitution talks about due process as well? Remind me again what he is CONVICTED OF?

It's been used 15 times in the countries history. 14 times during civil war. The Supreme court has discussed the necessity for this to be very rare, so as to not alienate the voters. So short of a conviction, no, the house should not overrule the voters.
Click to expand...

So, even thought the Constitution allows for immediate correction to obviously criminal behavior, and even though the citizens of his own district (by a huge margin) want him gone, you are content to allow him to play the system for political gain? This despite the fact that you will be whining about the very same thing tomorrow when someone else does it.

Well, at the very least, it is nice to see that you have full confidence in the courts-as long as they serve your purpose.
 
bullskin said:
So, even thought the Constitution allows for immediate correction to obviously criminal behavior, and even though the citizens of his own district (by a huge margin) want him gone, you are content to allow him to play the system for political gain? This despite the fact that you will be whining about the very same thing tomorrow when someone else does it.

Well, at the very least, it is nice to see that you have full confidence in the courts-as long as they serve your purpose.
Click to expand...

And here we go again.

In America we have a way of addressing these issues. It's called an election. If his constituents want him out, there's an election next fall.

As to "my purpose". What do you think the point of this was? Ethics? Morality?

Pull your head out.

This was about removing an R vote. Shrinking the minority.

This was big boy politics. This is playing to win. The Dems protected Bowman, then picked off a R district without spending anytime on a campaign. Your so concerned with the constitution, do his constituents have representation? Who addresses their issues?

Same reason Bob Menedez isn't going anywhere, and will get his day in court. Dems ain't giving up the majority for "ethics" or "morality".

The 1980's fantasy you're living in is just that, a fantasy. Your hero Reagan, wasn't moral, or ethical. He was a narco arms dealer, who skirted the constitution and Congress to wage a clandestine war.
 
hossblur said:
And here we go again.

In America we have a way of addressing these issues. It's called an election. If his constituents want him out, there's an election next fall.

As to "my purpose". What do you think the point of this was? Ethics? Morality?

Pull your head out.

This was about removing an R vote. Shrinking the minority.

This was big boy politics. This is playing to win. The Dems protected Bowman, then picked off a R district without spending anytime on a campaign. Your so concerned with the constitution, do his constituents have representation? Who addresses their issues?

Same reason Bob Menedez isn't going anywhere, and will get his day in court. Dems ain't giving up the majority for "ethics" or "morality".

The 1980's fantasy you're living in is just that, a fantasy. Your hero Reagan, wasn't moral, or ethical. He was a narco arms dealer, who skirted the constitution and Congress to wage a clandestine war.
Click to expand...
In America, we are provided options when it comes to addressing crime in government. The courts and elections are just two of them. Impeachment and expulsion are options as well. You say that our preferences differ, yet you regularly mention impeachment when it suits your purposes. In the end, your preferences are about politics, not principles.

As for Reagan, I am content to criticize or compliment, as the situation demands. He did good things, and he did bad things. The same is true for Trump. The same is true for Biden. My interest in this forum is simply to demonstrate the the biases of many who post here. Good government depends on people knowing the facts, and where I believe one side of an interesting argument has been neglected, I speak up.
 
Homer said:
Bullskin.........he was convicted of no crime...yet. Your logic says that if a single party were to achieve a 2/3 advantage in congress .....they could expel the entire opposition party.....simply on accusations of bad things....
Click to expand...

Most of your responses are unintelligible, and do not logically follow anything I have written. This one is pretty clear, so I will respond simply by saying, why would you argue this point with me? If you do not like the language of the Constitution, which permits expulsion by either the court or by Congress when findings support accusations, then you will have to pursue that angle elsewhere. I am simply explaining what is, not what might have been. I also trust that there will remain enough honest Americans in each party that such abuse of power by those with less integrity cannot occur. When that day no longer exists, then Democracy is lost because the voters who put such people in office no longer value this system of government.
 
Last edited:
bullskin said:
In America, we are provided options when it comes to addressing crime in government. The courts and elections are just two of them. Impeachment and expulsion are options as well. You say that our preferences differ, yet you regularly mention impeachment when it suits your purposes. In the end, your preferences are about politics, not principles.

As for Reagan, I am content to criticize or compliment, as the situation demands. He did good things, and he did bad things. The same is true for Trump. The same is true for Biden. My interest in this forum is simply to demonstrate the the biases of many who post here. Good government depends on people knowing the facts, and where I believe one side of an interesting argument has been neglected, I speak up.
Click to expand...


My interests mirror the interests in this instance. Of course it's politics.

1 year ago you didn't know George Santos. You know him now, because it's a daily story about him. 435 house members, many with ethics complaints, and you can't name them.

This one you can, because the left made sure of it. Why? POLITICS.


Since 2016, as TDS infected the land, we are now on our 3rd "constitutionally approved" scheme to undercut rte will of the voters. All 3, magically are R being cut, or attempted to be.

Is that principled? Or politics?

Are we REALLY to believe Santos was so unique that he's one of 2 house members post civil war to be expelled? How many thousands of members, and Santos is 2nd worst? Come on man.

Having "principles" isn't a suicide pact. And frankly your constant references to Reagan over the years show your not principled (Reagan deserved impeachment), your virtue signalling.
 
hossblur said:
Are we REALLY to believe Santos was so unique that he's one of 2 house members post civil war to be expelled? How many thousands of members, and Santos is 2nd worst? Come on man.
Click to expand...
He's not the only POS in office, but yup, he's pretty unique. Damn good volleyball player though.
 
hossblur said:
My interests mirror the interests in this instance. Of course it's politics.

1 year ago you didn't know George Santos. You know him now, because it's a daily story about him. 435 house members, many with ethics complaints, and you can't name them.

This one you can, because the left made sure of it. Why? POLITICS.


Since 2016, as TDS infected the land, we are now on our 3rd "constitutionally approved" scheme to undercut rte will of the voters. All 3, magically are R being cut, or attempted to be.

Is that principled? Or politics?

Are we REALLY to believe Santos was so unique that he's one of 2 house members post civil war to be expelled? How many thousands of members, and Santos is 2nd worst? Come on man.

Having "principles" isn't a suicide pact. And frankly your constant references to Reagan over the years show your not principled (Reagan deserved impeachment), your virtue signalling.
Click to expand...

If you are arguing that either party is held accountable only by the other, then you are wrong. Cheney, Kinzinger and many others stood up to denounce the lie that become Stop the Steal--even though it would cost them their jobs. Half of the Democrats in the Senate have publicly stated that Menendez must step down, though it puts their own majority at risk. And Santos' own state's Republican Congressmen have demanded that he be expelled. It is not just the left that has complained about Santos, and those Republicans who voted to expel him have taken a political risk in order to do the right thing. These are the men and women who disprove the wishful suggestion by some that all of Washington is a swamp. For this particular action, they deserve the recognition mentioned in my original post. Those who refuse to act just are still pooping up the frog water.

The Framers understood that the will of the voters is not infallible, and they arranged for the removal of those who do not deserve the responsibility of public office, no matter whether they deceived the voters in order to attain that position or whether the voters themselves acted irresponsibly in their election. I am fine with that. Of course Santos is not unique. That many of our elected representatives have escaped the consequences they deserve is a problem that requires more attention, not less. I am tired of hearing the same people who complain about swamps continue to excuse their own sewage.

Finally, on the subject of schemes to undercut the will of the voters I recall many more than three. There was the movement to impeach Clinton, Obama, W Bush, Trump and Biden, not to mention the Trafficants, Gaetz's, etc. But, as I have already said, an effort to impeach is not an impeachment. It is a political tool that both sides have employed to the detriment of all, except where the facts actually support the case. And when the facts do not, then voters will have to consider whether the lying, cheating party that brought forth the charges is worth their support. There are costs to both sides of any impeachment effort.

As for Reagan, the only reason I mention him is to show how much the Republican Party has changed. I have no strong feelings one way or the other when it comes to his performance, and conclude that he did some things well and others poorly. Regardless, his positions were probably too moderate to rise within the party today and he was, by nature, an optimist, where today's Republicans are frightened of their own shadows.
 
hossblur said:
Mealy mouth bs.

Bowman, a former high school principal, who knows better than to pull fire alarms, initially stated he didn t pull the alarm. Then tape emerged showing he did in fact. So his next statement(confession) was that he didn't know it was a fire alarm.

Next, capitol police contradicted that story

“USCP officers had previously placed signs with clear language that explained the door was secured and marked as an emergency exit only.”

So, on try #3, he finally admitted what he had done.

Not quite the "confession" you claimed



As to Santos
I'm quoting YOU

The House rules require that the Ethics Committee investigate accusations and make recommendations based upon their findings, which they did when they recommended the expulsion of Santos.

Now, when challenged on your obvious lie, you try to spin referral to DOJ as being the same as "recommended the expulsion of Santos"

That's not splitting hairs. Referral for criminal charges, and recommended expulsion, ARE NOT THE SAME, nor are they even executed by the same body.

Expulsion is done in the House .

Criminal charges, are not.


Go ahead

You got caught
Click to expand...

My words. "Bowman is guilty. He confessed before it became necessary to prove his guilt in court."

Your words: " So, on try #3 he finally admitted what he had done."

The Upshot: A "confession," for you, does not count if it is preceded by a denial. That definition is going to disappoint many of those who intended to visit their priest this Sunday.


You wrote: "The House Ethics Committee in a report released Thursday said there is clear evidence that Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) committed serious crimes, though it stopped short of recommending formal sanctions, as some had hoped it would do.

I wrote: "the ISC recommended that the Committee immediately refer these allegations to the Department of Justice."

The Upshot: You do not consider the recommendation to refer allegations to the DOJ to be a recommendation for formal sanctions. I do. And, if it is your point that a recommendation for criminal prosecution is not the same as a recommendation for expulsion, then I concede your point. That said, if this distinction constitutes a "lie" on my part, then I would point out your own "lie" in suggesting there was no recommendation for formal sanction. It is difficult to imagine any greater recommendation for formal sanction than a referral by the House Ethics Committee to the DOJ accompanied by a statement suggesting evidence of multiple crimes.
 
Liz Cheney job was to represent the citizens of Wyoming. It wasn't to avenge her daddy who Trump went after publically and repeatedly.



I keep hearing the republican party changed

How? Abortion, debt, guns, border?

Oh, you mean it changed because the voters tired of listening to speeches and demand action? They saw what McCain and Romney brought by supporting them? OBAMA.

The R party is responding to the VOTERS, not the backroom. Not the check pant brigade.

Stop being a political cuck
 
bullskin said:
My words. "Bowman is guilty. He confessed before it became necessary to prove his guilt in court."

Your words: " So, on try #3 he finally admitted what he had done."

The Upshot: A "confession," for you, does not count if it is preceded by a denial. That definition is going to disappoint many of those who intended to visit their priest this Sunday.


You wrote: "The House Ethics Committee in a report released Thursday said there is clear evidence that Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) committed serious crimes, though it stopped short of recommending formal sanctions, as some had hoped it would do.

I wrote: "the ISC recommended that the Committee immediately refer these allegations to the Department of Justice."

The Upshot: You do not consider the recommendation to refer allegations to the DOJ to be a recommendation for formal sanctions. I do. And, if it is your point that a recommendation for criminal prosecution is not the same as a recommendation for expulsion, then I concede your point. That said, if this distinction constitutes a "lie" on my part, then I would point out your own "lie" in suggesting there was no recommendation for formal sanction. It is difficult to imagine any greater recommendation for formal sanction than a referral by the House Ethics Committee to the DOJ accompanied by a statement suggesting evidence of multiple crimes.
Click to expand...


You said they RECOMMENDED EXPULSION. They DID NOT

Even when I quote your words you spin.

Admitting guilt as part of a deal to avoid court, is not the same as confessing prior to. Again, spinning. He took a plea, he didn't confess. In exchange if a lesser charge he ADMITTED what the tapes showed.


Just stop. Everyone can read, I quoted you, you lied on both counts as part of some weak attempt to bash the right and prop up the left.

And NO I don't believe of Santos said "yup, I did everything they say", that you would then say "he confessed, he's a moral man and as such deserves no penalty.
 
Last edited:
To be honest with everyone, I never heard of George Santos until bullskin started this thread. So I did a search on Google which lead me to Wikipedia. He sounds like a shady person. Kind of like a normal Congressman, or woman, or whatever his pronoun is.

Then I read the smoking guns. No wonder he had to go.

"Santos was president of United for Trump, a small New York state-based group supporting the reelection of Donald Trump. In July 2019, the group staged a counterprotest to an anti-Trump rally in Buffalo, New York, that led to shouted comments between the groups and a fistfight between two men."

"Santos spoke at a "Stop the Steal" rally the day before the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, telling the crowd that the election he lost by 13 points in 2020 was stolen from him.[82] On January 6, he attended Trump's Save America rally at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. He later said that Trump "was energized", gave "a great speech", and was "at his full awesomeness" that day. After the speech, a mob of Trump supporters attacked the Capitol, disrupting the counting of the electoral votes that formalized Trump's loss in the 2020 United States presidential election.[86] Santos later said he was "never on Capitol grounds" on January 6, called it a "sad and dark day", and acknowledged that Joe Biden won the 2020 election."
 
Bullskin hadn't either until MSM told him.

Same jackeagins that told him the ethics committee recommended expulsion, and that Jamal Bowman confessed before going to court. Most likely hadn't heard of Jamal Bowman either, to be fair.

But Eel is right, which explains his incorporating Trump into his diatribe.


Good news though, Liz Cheney for president gives him his chance to be principled🤣🤣🤣
 
Last edited:
bullskin said:
Absolutely. I would be content with either Haley as a Republican or Cheney so long as she joined or created a party consistent with what I know of her today.
Click to expand...
Lizzy is a war monger. Not a chanceof getting elected. Could not even get re-elected as senator. She is a clown.
 
Cali4x4 said:
Lizzy is a war monger. Not a chanceof getting elected. Could not even get re-elected as senator. She is a clown.
Click to expand...

The war bit doesn't bother me. The worst enemy is one that you neglect to confront, and at least she is not in Putin or Xi's back pocket. And, while she cannot win a national election at this time, she can establish a third party that attracts moderates and thereby force the two major parties toward the middle if they hope to recapture centrist voters. A centrist party does not have to win the presidency to gain control of government--it merely has to elect enough members to Congress that neither of the other two can act unilaterally.
 
bullskin said:
The war bit doesn't bother me. The worst enemy is one that you neglect to confront, and at least she is not in Putin or Xi's back pocket. And, while she cannot win a national election at this time, she can establish a third party that attracts moderates and thereby force the two major parties toward the middle if they hope to recapture centrist voters. A centrist party does not have to win the presidency to gain control of government--it merely has to elect enough members to Congress that neither of the other two can act unilaterally.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that.
 
bullskin said:
The war bit doesn't bother me. The worst enemy is one that you neglect to confront, and at least she is not in Putin or Xi's back pocket. And, while she cannot win a national election at this time, she can establish a third party that attracts moderates and thereby force the two major parties toward the middle if they hope to recapture centrist voters. A centrist party does not have to win the presidency to gain control of government--it merely has to elect enough members to Congress that neither of the other two can act unilaterally.
Click to expand...

Oh dear God. Bullskin is your real name Lyndsey Graham?
 
1701935646019.png
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

EA502C7D-F463-44AB-B8FF-8E22A1810545.jpeg
Screenshot_20230112_205727_Facebook.jpg
Big, Heavy Trophy Buck
IMG_4500.jpeg
IMG_2235.jpg
40044ABF-4B0C-47A0-83A1-AA6C41597A71.jpeg
thumbnail_20201024_171953.jpg
Unreal!
8AE6BB82-1D09-491D-8B37-49B2229F6A7F.jpeg
20230814_203934.jpg
Good Lookin' Buck for geno
IMG_3761.PNG
Back
Top Bottom