• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

George Papadopoulos is running for Congress in California district vacated by Katie Hill

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,091
9,965
136
CA25 is an odd district. It was all dem until 1990. Thereafter, it was all rep until Hill won it last year. Kind of a swing district. But I don't think any R closely affiliated with Trump has a good chance right now. Also, Papadopoulos is a total idiot. This is the best they could do to challenge this swing district?
Because of his involvement with Trump he'll get saps to contribute to his campaign.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
11,842
6,297
136
Because of his involvement with Trump he'll get saps to contribute to his campaign.

Probably right. But the funny thing is...he talked. He told the FBI that he was contacted by a UK professor with ties to the Kremlin in March, 2016, and told that the Russians had "stolen e-mails" which would be very bad for the democrats. And he then told all the senior staff of the Trump campaign about this, meaning that Trump knew the Russians stole those e-mails months before he said it might be a 300 lb man in his mother's basement.

But yeah, they'll try to help him anyway.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,091
9,965
136
Probably right. But the funny thing is...he talked. He told the FBI that he was contacted by a UK professor with ties to the Kremlin in March, 2016, and told that the Russians had "stolen e-mails" which would be very bad for the democrats. And he then told all the senior staff of the Trump campaign about this, meaning that Trump knew the Russians stole those e-mails months before he said it might be a 300 lb man in his mother's basement.

But yeah, they'll try to help him anyway.
Besides GP gave Barr the Mifsuf lead so our tax dollars can be wasted.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
16,661
2,171
126
If doing a thing and getting punished for it is 'legitimizing', then Nixon legitimized corruption for Republicans back in '72. Care to comment?
Clinton wasn't punished for the act, he was impeached for lying about it under oath. I'm reasonably confident that he didn't legitimize perjury.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
16,661
2,171
126
Trump did it and covered it up with hush payments for which one person has gone to jail.

And Bill was dragged through the coals for lying about it. Meanwhile GOP is doing jack sh!t about a president who's committed actual crimes.

Totally the same?
No, those are different.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,549
1,759
126
As we can see from pcgeek's response, Democrats are always guilty of much worse things than Republicans, even when there is no evidence proving it.

That isn't what I said.

Cutting to the root of what I said is that.
She didn't need to resign. It was her choice. I don't think she needed to either.
I suspect that there are other reasons for her resignation other than what is already in the public eye. I could be wrong, but as of yet I see nothing to resign for. Esp if she is innocent as she claims.
 
Last edited:
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,714
136
Trump did it and covered it up with hush payments for which one person has gone to jail.

And Bill was dragged through the coals for lying about it. Meanwhile GOP is doing jack sh!t about a president who's committed actual crimes.

Totally the same?
Clinton is far worse because he's a Democrat.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,009
3,826
146
Clinton wasn't punished for the act, he was impeached for lying about it under oath. I'm reasonably confident that he didn't legitimize perjury.
And Nixon wasn't actually impeached, so he was just as 'punished' as Clinton was for it. Ergo he legitimized corruption just as much as Clinton legitimized adulterly.

No go on, continue to tell us all how it's different because Clinton was a Democrat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
16,661
2,171
126
And Nixon wasn't actually impeached, so he was just as 'punished' as Clinton was for it. Ergo he legitimized corruption just as much as Clinton legitimized adulterly.

No go on, continue to tell us all how it's different because Clinton was a Democrat.
I don't follow your logic at all. Clinton was never charged with the crime of adultery, that was never on the table. He was charged with perjury, and never convicted. By your (seriously flawed) logic, Clinton legitimized perjury as much as Nixon legitimized corruption.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,009
3,826
146
I don't follow your logic at all. Clinton was never charged with the crime of adultery, that was never on the table. He was charged with perjury, and never convicted. By your (seriously flawed) logic, Clinton legitimized perjury as much as Nixon legitimized corruption.
There's no logic to it because it's illogical, just as it's illogical to state that Clinton legitimized adultery. I was being intentionally obtuse to point out how ridiculous your argument was.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY