So basically her issue with her heritage has no impact upon her capacity or competency as a Senator (as I suspected). Claiming improper heritage is hardly consistent with your cheating spiel.I guess if you want someone who doesn't have any practical experience in the real world or working knowledge of things setting policy.....nothing. However I want someone with a modicum of common sense it means everything.
Who cares? Seriously if someone cheats you don't reward them with power, you throw them in a place where they see the sun approximately never. Considering the cheating aspect........possibly everything is affected by the cheating. Let me ask. Would you want to drive on a bridge constructed by someone who cheated at engineering? Or would you trust a financial manager who cheated his way to the top? If not, why would you trust a stupid ass that cheated her way into college?
It just might actually.
I don't give a flying **** what "the voters want" I care about actually following the constitution. Anyone too stupid or dishonest to do that does not deserve power.
On the contrary, the reasons you just gave have nothing to do with her capacity. What makes that any different from being a high school bully?I'm pretty sure you can't. See, we've prosecuted fraud for years, bullying, while bad, is only NOW an issue. So, you are going to defend someone who committed fraud because you agree with the platform?
And no, I'm not going to defend her for any reason. I'm just pointing out, even by your own admission, it has nothing to do with her capacity as a potential Senator. You're after her for another reason and hiding it behind this. Sure it was wrong (assuming she did it) to claim improper heritage. But you yourself cannot provide reasons why it's relevant in this context.
I don't give a **** about this for the same reason I don't give a **** about Romney being a high school bully. It has no impact upon her capacity as a potential Senator.