• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ex-SC Gov. Sanford back in political office

Top Cat said:
You have to love the right wing apologists. As if you would ever admit falling prey
to your religious right bedfellows? Y'all got up with fleas.
Click to expand...

LOL !! Someone piss in your Cheerio's ?
Sorry, the left stupidly elected a incompetent ideologue to run the Country, and now Democrats in local races are paying for it.

Can't say we didn't warn you.

Sanford wasn't the ideal candidate, but even with his skeletons he handed Colberts Sister her ass.

Thats what matters.
 
Amadeus said:
That would just be petty. I would prefer not to think of the voters as petty.
Click to expand...

LOL !!! Minus petty voters the Democrats would be a long forgotten painful memory.

"PETTTY " is what got BO his second term of failure
 
Amadeus said:
Public interest is not a credential, especially when that interest is largely scandalous, as in Sanford's case. Aside from being an ethically ambiguous ideologue, I don't see what qualifies Sanford as a candidate.

As for Busch:
Click to expand...
You make the point. You had to Wikipedia her. Want to know what is TRULY sad? the vast majority of voters in that state voted because of the letter after both candidates names and didnt so much as bother to look at who they were voting for.

Sorry...the 'Nation' has known her for one reason. There is interest in this election for one reason. His name, is Stephen Colbert. Sad...but true.
 
Amadeus said:
That would just be petty. I would prefer not to think of the voters as petty.
Click to expand...
:lamo OK...see now that was funny. I knew underneath it all you had a sense of humor.
 
Fenton said:
LOL !! Someone piss in your Cheerio's ?
Sorry, the left stupidly elected a incompetent ideologue to run the Country, and now Democrats in local races are paying for it.
Click to expand...


really? is that why the dems gained in the senate last year when they had more seats up for grabs than did the GOP? and is that why the dems got about 1.5 million more votes for house elections than did the GOP last year? other than this extremely red district in an extremely red state, exactly what were all these other "local races" the dems are paying for it in?
 
Fenton said:
LOL !!! Minus petty voters the Democrats would be a long forgotten painful memory.

"PETTTY " is what got BO his second term of failure
Click to expand...

or you could actually contribute some content for a change. just a suggestion.
 
South Carolina is the vortex of tea party quantum weirdness. Imagine reelecting a freak like Stanton after all his psychodramas. It's what conservatism is all about.
 
poweRob said:
really? is that why the dems gained in the
senate last year when they had more seats up for grabs than did the GOP? and is that why the dems got about 1.5 million more votes for house elections than did the GOP last year? other than this extremely red district in an extremely red state, exactly what were all these other "local races" the dems are paying for it in?
Click to expand...

oooohh...good one.

Well obviously THIS RACE and the up and comming 2014 races.

No, you guys are not getting the House back, not after electing a incompetent and his lying bitch Secretary of State.

Oh but it's " Budget Cuts " ......wrong, its a ideology thats immersed in corruptuon lies and blame.

Hey, I just heard retailers are cutting hours ata a rate not seen in 30 hours. That directly translates to pain for the middle class and its because you people elected a dumb ass.

Good job, did you ever think you would be complicit in the perpetual misery of millionz of people ?
 
upsideguy said:
Yep, "... South Carolina: too small to be a republic; too big to be an insane asylum.."

Actually, the people of SC-1 were pretty stupid with this one. The best way to have got rid of Sanford, who is an embarrassment to anyone with dignity, would be to have elected Colbert... she would have been a one termer and would not have even remotely affected the balance of power in DC... then they could get themselves a real congressman next time around. Now, they just look like foolish people that would elect any yahoo with an "R" next to their name.

Every person in that district to should go to bed this evening in shame as Washington has one more elected hypocrite.
Click to expand...

How is he a hypocrite? :confused:
 
VanceMack said:
Both wrong. Well...wrong and a half. Lying under oath...bad. Lying under oath while on trial of sexual harassment for jerking off in front of a campaign staffer and asking her to kiss it. Well...thats kinda an issue. Allegations of rape and sexual assault...those kinda matter too. Getting a blow job from someone he classified as a child...well...that just makes him a douchebag. But....a decent president and one I would vote in tomorrow if it were possible, considering who we have as available options.
Click to expand...

On the whole he did a reasonably good job as POTUS, and I'm uninterested in his private sexual adventures. Perjury committed by the Commander in Chief had an exceptionally corrosive effect on morale and discipline in the federal chain of command. It was a struggle to explain to younger officers why it was that their ultimate commander was someone who would have been judged unfit for service among them.:cool:
 
poweRob said:
Which only shows how sad and divisive partisans have become. So much for the whole diatribe during the Clinton years the GOP threw about about how "Character matters!!111111!!!!!" Guess not.
Click to expand...

I suppose the districts that always elect Democrats bother you just as much?
 
Top Cat said:
Actually it was religious right whack jobs exerting their influence over republicans to participate in a blatant witch hunt. If republicans had a brain, they would have gone after him for national security purposes. He put himself in a position to be bribed.

Instead the religious right does what it always does, it attempts to legislate morality.
Click to expand...

I don't know anyone who cared about the sex, except to express disappointment that the C-in-C could not score a better-looking mistress. On the whole he did a reasonably good job as POTUS. Perjury was the problem. Perjury committed by the Commander in Chief had an exceptionally corrosive effect on morale and discipline in the federal chain of command. It was a struggle to explain to younger officers why it was that their ultimate commander was someone who would have been judged unfit for service among them.:cool:
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
Clinton never had to run for office after the lying under oath thing.

The attacks on Clinton were accusations of marital infidelity, you know, character attacks.
Click to expand...

I know no one who cared about the infidelity. On the whole he did a reasonably good job as POTUS, and I'm uninterested in his private sexual adventures. Perjury committed by the Commander in Chief had an exceptionally corrosive effect on morale and discipline in the federal chain of command. It was a struggle to explain to younger officers why it was that their ultimate commander was someone who would have been judged unfit for service among them.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
On the whole he did a reasonably good job as POTUS, and I'm uninterested in his private sexual adventures. Perjury committed by the Commander in Chief had an exceptionally corrosive effect on morale and discipline in the federal chain of command. It was a struggle to explain to younger officers why it was that their ultimate commander was someone who would have been judged unfit for service among them.:cool:
Click to expand...
It was easier for me...I told the troops lifes not fair, it is what it is, and to shut up and color. ;-)
 
Marrion Barry was what? 21 years ago? half the posters on this thread would have been... what? 4-5 years old? Some of guys are either showing just how old and decrepit you are or how irrelevant your historical facts are.
 
poweRob said:
Ex-SC Gov. Sanford back in political office

Former Republican South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford revived a scandal-scarred political career by winning back his old congressional seat Tuesday in a district that hasn't elected a Democrat in three decades.

The comeback was complete when he defeated Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, the sister of political satirist Stephen Colbert. With 87 percent of the precincts reporting, Sanford had 54 percent of the vote.​

too ****in funny to see this level of partisan blindness.
Click to expand...

Just like the ol' Mayor of DC Marion Barry, right?
 
Hatuey said:
Marrion Barry was what? 21 years ago? half the posters on this thread would have been... what? 4-5 years old? Some of guys are either showing just how old and decrepit you are or how irrelevant your historical facts are.
Click to expand...

Man, blind partisan irony is funny no matter which side of the isle it comes from.
 
Hatuey said:
Marrion Barry was what? 21 years ago? half the posters on this thread would have been... what? 4-5 years old? Some of guys are either showing just how old and decrepit you are or how irrelevant your historical facts are.
Click to expand...

Marion Barry is still in office, representing the 8th Ward on the DC City Council.:roll:
 
Jack Hays said:
Marion Barry is still in office, representing the 8th Ward on the DC City Council.:roll:
Click to expand...

Yes, and his case happened... 21 years ago. Most voters in his district are either too young to remember or probably wouldn't care about his drug use. So how is that relevant to.... an elected official today using tax payer money to finance his trips to see his mistress? Before you answer that: Say it wasn't his mistress, it was just his wife. He'd still be using tax payer money to finance his trips to see her. How does that remotely compare to a guy being arrested for drug use? Which I'll I don't need to remind you, you Libertarians seem to be in support of legalizing because it doesn't harm anyone. But, I get it.

20 years from now, drug use will be mostly legal. Using tax payer money to fund trips and see your mistress will still be frowned upon. By most anyways.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, and his case happened... 21 years ago. Most voters in his district are either too young to remember or probably wouldn't care about his drug use. So how is that relevant to.... an elected official today using tax payer money to finance his trips to see his mistress? Before you answer that: Say it wasn't his mistress, it was just his wife. He'd still be using tax payer money to finance his trips to see her. How does that remotely compare to a guy being arrested for drug use? Which I'll I don't need to remind you, you Libertarians seem to be in support of legalizing because it doesn't harm anyone. But, I get it.

20 years from now, drug use will be mostly legal. Using tax payer money to fund trips and see your mistress will still be frowned upon. By most anyways.
Click to expand...

I'm in favor of drug legalization and against using public funds for private purposes. What's your point?:roll:
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm in favor of drug legalization and against using public funds for private purposes. What's your point?:roll:
Click to expand...

Essentially what you've said is that:

1. I'm partisan for calling out a politician for misappropriating public funds, regardless of his lean

and

2. also calling out the irrelevancy of bringing up a guy who was sent to jail for engaging in something the entire US population does.

If that's partisan, I'll take it before I take false comparisons.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, and his case happened... 21 years ago. Most voters in his district are either too young to remember or probably wouldn't care about his drug use. So how is that relevant to.... an elected official today using tax payer money to finance his trips to see his mistress? Before you answer that: Say it wasn't his mistress, it was just his wife. He'd still be using tax payer money to finance his trips to see her. How does that remotely compare to a guy being arrested for drug use? Which I'll I don't need to remind you, you Libertarians seem to be in support of legalizing because it doesn't harm anyone. But, I get it.

20 years from now, drug use will be mostly legal. Using tax payer money to fund trips and see your mistress will still be frowned upon. By most anyways.
Click to expand...

By Philip Rucker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 3, 2009

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford did not improperly use state money to pay for trips to New York and South America to see his Argentine mistress, state law enforcement officials concluded yesterday, as the governor reiterated that he has no plans to step down despite mounting pressure to do so.

The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division reviewed Sanford's travel records and "found absolutely no misuse of funds," agency director Reggie Lloyd said in an interview. Sanford (R), who is spending the holiday weekend in Florida with his wife and their four sons, released 44 pages of personal and official travel records and credit card statements yesterday showing that he did not use public money in connection with his extramarital affair.

He reimbursed the state $3,304 this week for part of an official state-sponsored trip to Brazil and Argentina in June 2008 during which he spent time with his mistress, Maria Belén Chapur, said Sanford's spokesman, Joel Sawyer. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom