• 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!

South Carolina Governor Admits to Extramarital Affair (title updated)

That trip he is repaying as pointed out in the link is the trip he took a year ago, while on official business with the U.S. Commerce Department. I think its very noble of him to offer to repay the Argentinian leg of the trip myself.

Right, this is also the trip where he asked for Argentina to be added to the itinerary from what I saw on TV.
 
Right, this is also the trip where he asked for Argentina to be added to the itinerary from what I saw on TV.

Well when you get a good solid link for that one let me know.

Im not trying to be snobbish about this, but with a 2 year old in the house my TV stays on Noggin.
 
Well when you get a good solid link for that one let me know.

Im not trying to be snobbish about this, but with a 2 year old in the house my TV stays on Noggin.

No worries, I understand.
 
Where is your evidence that it was the state's money?

It's in all of the recent articles about it. How can you not know of his misuse of state money if you have read any of the stories about it?
 
Well when you get a good solid link for that one let me know.

Im not trying to be snobbish about this, but with a 2 year old in the house my TV stays on Noggin.

Got one.

Gov. Sanford Struggles to Hang On - WSJ.com

Earlier Thursday, a spokeswoman for the South Carolina Department of Commerce confirmed that Mr. Sanford instructed state officials to extend a taxpayer-funded mission to Brazil a year ago to include a trip to Buenos Aires at the time his relationship with a woman who lived there was becoming romantic. The department estimated Mr. Sanford's share of the Argentina leg cost $11,000. There is no indication that state funds were spent on Mr. Sanford's most recent trip to Argentina, during which his staff said he was hiking the Appalachian Trail.
 
It's in all of the recent articles about it. How can you not know of his misuse of state money if you have read any of the stories about it?


Again, that was the previous trip in which they were on business.

I am talking specifically about THIS trip he just took.

The fact of the matter is you have no evidence to support the assertion that the state funds were used SPECIFICALLY to meet her, since it was an official trip with an official purpose and there were multiple places that were visited, not just Argentina.
 
Wrong trip. That was a previous trip in which he was actually there on business.

This trip was not business, that quote is not a recent one.

Doesn't make a difference, in fact it makes it a more egregiously ironic statement since he also snuck away to see the same mistress during that prior trip. Why else do you think he went there to begin with? Do you really believe he had anything but a concocted state purpose to be in Argentina even the first time?

I take it conservatives are just skimming this news with the least possible reading comprehension, maybe even closing their eyes while pretending to have read it, for the usual partisan reasons.
 
Doesn't make a difference, in fact it makes it a more egregiously ironic statement since he also snuck away to see the same mistress during that prior trip. Why else do you think he went there to begin with? Do you really believe he had anything but a concocted state purpose to be in Argentina even the first time?

I take it conservatives are just skimming this news with the least possible reading comprehension, maybe even closing their eyes while pretending to have read it, for the usual partisan reasons.

No, Im reading the article with perfect reading comprehension.

Im not reading into and making my own partisan assumptions as it appears that you have done.

It may be the case that you are correct, however, Im not going to jump up and down stating it to be so until there is a little more substance than an "educated guess".
 
Again, that was the previous trip in which they were on business.

I am talking specifically about THIS trip he just took.

The fact of the matter is you have no evidence to support the assertion that the state funds were used SPECIFICALLY to meet her, since it was an official trip with an official purpose and there were multiple places that were visited, not just Argentina.

If you are talking about this trip, you are correct. We do not yet have enough information to judge.
 
No, Im reading the article with perfect reading comprehension.

Im not reading into and making my own partisan assumptions as it appears that you have done.

It may be the case that you are correct, however, Im not going to jump up and down stating it to be so until there is a little more substance than an "educated guess".

Well because you have so much trouble finding the passage, here:

"Sanford also issued a statement promising to reimburse the state for an economic-development trip he took to Argentina last year that included time he spent with his mistress. State Commerce Department records indicate more than $8,000 was spent on airfare, lodging and meals, though Sanford did not say how much he will pay back."

You can also google the original quote and find it referenced to one of those two trips to see his mistress.
 
Last edited:
Well because you have so much trouble finding the passage, here:



You can also google the original quote and find it referenced to one of those two trips to see his mistress.

I know that he has stated that, as posted in an earlier post by me, and I commend him on being noble enough to repay it.

But when it comes down to the facts, he is repaying for the Argentina trip, which there was actually work being done during, it wasn't just a vacation trip. Being with his girl was just a side benefit.

Still no evidence that the purpose of the Argentina trip was specifically to go see his girl, and I don't see him offering to pay for it as admitting to any guilt on that matter, I see him offering to pay for it as a pre-emptive move to get people to STFU about speculation and accept that he is repaying the money.
 
If you are talking about this trip, you are correct. We do not yet have enough information to judge.

I disagree. Circumstantial evidence weaker than this sort of association is used to convict people on a variety of crimes. Just because he multi-tasked the purpose of his trip doesn't make it legitimate. He is clearly trying to nip any further investigation into the purpose of the trip by offering to pay up front, since if it is found he fabricated reasons for such a trip, he may be guilty of a prosecutable crime, regardless of whether he reimburses the cost.
 
I disagree. Circumstantial evidence weaker than this sort of association is used to convict people on a variety of crimes. Just because he multi-tasked the purpose of his trip doesn't make it legitimate. He is clearly trying to nip any further investigation into the purpose of the trip by offering to pay up front, since if it is found he fabricated reasons for such a trip, he may be guilty of a prosecutable crime, regardless of whether he reimburses the cost.

I am not a judge or jury. Based on my standards, I don't see enough evidence where I am comfortable making that accusation.
 
Last edited:
I am not a judge or jury. Based on my standards, I don't see enough evidence where I am comfortable making that accusation.

Well let's look at the existing facts: He is a liar who fessed up because he was caught red-handed lying. Do you think a liar that initially snuck out of the country, if he had not been subsequently caught doing so, would have been so "noble" and forthright on his return? It would stretch credulity to the limit to believe so. I would consider it in the realm of beyond doubt to predict continued perfidy on his part had he not been caught, since there would have been no purpose in sneaking out in the first place.

On the latest trip to Argentina he used a state vehicle, state money, and familiar trust of state officials to completely either facilitate or fund his tryst without the knowledge of state officials. There was no concurrent state purpose he could claim, and he left in secret under a cover story of hiking the Appalachains, along an isolated trail where his absence from which would not be reliably missed by anyone. You can conclude his intent had been to lie, and had he not been caught, to continue to do so. Even a fellow state Republican made the same conclusion, saying there was a "willful effort to circumvent the constitution."

Therefore, would someone who had no problem completely ripping off tax-payers this time, have a problem concocting a state-purpose at that prior time? That is what you have to ask yourself. That is powerful circumstantial evidence.
 
That was facetiously inflammatory, not to mention pointless speculation; the fact is he did no such thing. You are trolling conservatives and Christians with that paragraph, and nothing more.

It is not so much pointless speculation as pointed insight, a joke about someone who is now, rightfully by his own actions, a joke.
 
Right now the PR man for Sanford is breathing a sigh of relief because something bigger knocked him off the relentless news cycle.
 
Re: SC governor's whereabouts unknown, even to wife

:lol: i bet we could drink us some pints brother! :thumbs:
thank you, I am sure I would enjoy that, some people may find it strange why an atheist,socialist like myself would enjoy your company, the world is full of partisan idiots.

I am very hard on the catholic church.

Liverpool my city has always been divide by catholic and protestant sectarianism.

Before the Polish Pope visited the vitriol from both sides reached reached a dangerous pitch.

I entered a BBC radio debate, and stated that as an atheist Jew with my roots in Poland, I have a lot of reasons to feel hatred of the Polish Catholic Church, but as a human being I welcome any man of peace to my city.

The BBC then invited my to take part in a local television debate with the to leaders of the churches in front of an audience of catholics and protestants, both David Sheppard and Derek Worlock were united in wishing the Pope to come.

I had to defend both of them, and as they were on face value men of peace, I was happy to do so.I did come under fire after.

To add context, Liverpool is regarded as the second capital of Ireland, it was 1982, the sectarian violence in the Northern Ireland was bad.
 
Has not Rash Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich's "cup runneth over" a few times.


The pity for the Repubs is that Newt is one "big Bear" political animal that will never be accepted as there presidential nominee, much to the Democrats relief.
 
Re: SC governor's whereabouts unknown, even to wife

If you view this story honestly you will notice that the balance of sexual and other types of miscreants are pretty evenly distributed bewteen boh political parties.

But only one of those political parties claims to be the "Law & Order" & "Family Values" party with better morals & more patriotic than the other.
It's the hypocrisy of the Republican Party which angers me & is the cause of their current disfavor, imo.
 
Re: South Carolina Governor Admits to Extramarital Affair

The argument against gay marriage is that it will weaken heterosexual marriages and that it doesn't respect the sanctity of marriage.

And has nothing to do with the current topic.
 
Re: SC governor's whereabouts unknown, even to wife

But only one of those political parties claims to be the "Law & Order" & "Family Values" party with better morals & more patriotic than the other.
It's the hypocrisy of the Republican Party which angers me & is the cause of their current disfavor, imo.

I see what you did there. What a sly Fred Thompson reference.

And has nothing to do with the current topic.

Actually it does. Person X runs on a platform that says gay people shouldn't be married because of the need to "protect the sanctity of marriage." People listen to this guy and vote for him. Person X breaks the sanctity of marriage by having an affair. That makes him a hypocrite. Therefore he has no ground to say ANYTHING about protecting the sanctity of marriage. I don't understand how religious people can defend this guy when he has an affair but be adamant that gay people can't get married. Is it because of David of the Old Testament?
 
Last edited:
Re: SC governor's whereabouts unknown, even to wife

But only one of those political parties claims to be the "Law & Order" & "Family Values" party with better morals & more patriotic than the other.
It's the hypocrisy of the Republican Party which angers me & is the cause of their current disfavor, imo.


I'm waiting anxiously for the pro-"traditional" marriage people to pass a law banning Republicans from marrying.
 
Re: SC governor's whereabouts unknown, even to wife

I'm waiting anxiously for the pro-"traditional" marriage people to pass a law banning Republicans from marrying.



As soon as the democrats ban "Stupid"...... :2razz:
 
Back
Top Bottom