Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Scandalous Politicians Poll


vcczar

Scandalous Politicians Poll  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Which Politicians Are Too Ethically-Challenged, Dishonest, Corrupt, Perverted, etc. to Hold Office?

    • Andrew Cuomo
    • Matt Gaetz
    • Donald Trump
    • Brett Kavanaugh
    • Michael Flynn
    • Rudy Giuliani
    • Katie Hill
    • Al Franken
    • Roy Moore
    • Marjorie Taylor Greene
    • Hillary Clinton
    • Barack Obama
    • George W Bush
    • Dick Cheney
    • Ilhan Omar
    • None of the above. Even if they're unethical or whatever, they should be permitted to hold office.
  2. 2. Should any of the above be incarcerated?



Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Hestia said:

A Swiss model would not work with the U.S. Other countries' could, but not Switzerland. The country is too big, the need for quick action wouldn't work well with it. The countries' circumstances are too different. 

Yes, the US government is known for its quick action :classic_laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

So, basically, just ignore all the evidence and statements I've made to back up my case without refute or rebuttal, declare my claim isn't true by fiat of declaration, and expect that to stand at face value alone? You do think you're kidding here, with this kind of arrogant and dismissive bullshit? Are practicing to be an O'Brien figure from Orwell's, "1984," or is immature bluster (Trump-style) your new modus operandi?

Whatever makes you feel better. Sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patine said:

Beetlejuice@Cal@Cenzonico@ConservativeElector2@DakotaHale@Dobs@Edouard@Fbarbarossa@Hestia@jnewt@Kitten@Magnus Rex@Mishfox@MrPotatoTed@pilight@Rezi@Rodja@Sean F Kennedy@The Blood@vcczar@WVProgressive@Zenobiyl@Timur@Wiw @jvikings1 @TZMB @SilentLiberty @Eugene

And here you have it, everyone. @Pringles has officially abdicated all credibility. I highly advise to take any further posts he makes, and any old ones in retrospect, with a mine of salt, because he'll like just be pulling shit like this due to a lack of knowledge or an inability to accept, "inconvenient or annoying truths." This public service announcement has been provided from the horse's' mouth - @Pringles' own posts and attitudes. Thank-you!

I must say, you love to be quite the attention whore, don't you? Imagine tagging everyone over this kind of dumb shit. Grow up old man. 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Advice you should take as well. But looking in the mirror is NOT a strong point of yours.

I will never look into the mirror concerning myself when you're the one talking to me. And I'm sure a great many feel likewise. 🙂 

And unlike you, I don't need to tag the whole forum to make my point heard.

Nuff said.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Patine said:

Beetlejuice@Cal@Cenzonico@ConservativeElector2@DakotaHale@Dobs@Edouard@Fbarbarossa@Hestia@jnewt@Kitten@Magnus Rex@Mishfox@MrPotatoTed@pilight@Rezi@Rodja@Sean F Kennedy@The Blood@vcczar@WVProgressive@Zenobiyl@Timur@Wiw @jvikings1 @TZMB @SilentLiberty @Eugene

And here you have it, everyone. @Pringles has officially abdicated all credibility. I highly advise to take any further posts he makes, and any old ones in retrospect, with a mine of salt, because he'll like just be pulling shit like this due to a lack of knowledge or an inability to accept, "inconvenient or annoying truths." This public service announcement has been provided from the horse's' mouth - @Pringles' own posts and attitudes. Thank-you!

Can we avoid pinging the whole forums for interpersonal squabbles? Thanks.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patine said:

If you can start by saying that accepting introspection of criticism is absolutely off the table just because of whose giving it, and not what the criticism is, then you are on the path to eventually justifying Trump-like narcissism. The advice and criticism, and not their source, are what's key - something lost utterly on many people today as a tragic conceit of the younger generations their personality-driven superficial culture. It makes me weep for the world - it truly does.

Here we go again. Old man trying to tell the young man how to be. 

I'm fine with criticism, however, you're the one who gives armchair mental health diagnosis, has repeatedly stated that something is wrong with me and I need a psychiatrist. 

Sure, I've poked fun at you, but I honestly don't care what a random middle aged man from Canada who clearly has some problems of his own he needs to get checked out... says to me about my "personal problems." I don't want your symapthy. I don't want your criticism, even if valid, I'll take it from ANYBODY else on this forum gladly. 

Your own toxicity is why I don't take your seriously. You're annoying. 

If you couldn't understand all of that, here's a key takeway: Go fuck yourself. And don't tag me again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

"There is none so blind as he will not see,"

-Jesus Christ

I truly hope this obnoxious attitude is just a phase in your life and you actually grow out of it. You have a distorted view of the world that makes my concerns and criticisms on things seem like caustic, "doom and gloom," when they're more on base with reality than you seem to see. Only by seeing and understanding how the world really, and the real problems facing it, and not denying them or saying their perfectly acceptable is anything going to TRULY get better for everyone in the WORLD (not just one or several nations, but the whole globe - we've long past the point where hiding Nationalism and borders and our own affairs is realistic in the long-term). Denial is NOT a river in Africa - it's a VERY real problem in our world, and one you have a hand in in several significant areas. Though I don't expect you to have the maturity or insight to take this into account, anymore than anything said by me or others that is outside your ideological, "comfort zone," perhaps, one day, you'll see things more realistically and productively. Here's to hoping. Your outright hostility to my bringing up these points - even a fair number of times not originally directed at you - shows a real problem, as is.

I don't want you quoting scripture on me asshole. Don't try to exploit your own religion for your usual purity, "holier than thou" attitude. 

I'm a MODERATE Conservative. Because I believe being a moderate means I'm willing to change my mind, and I want to work with other people. Sure, we all have an ideological "comfort zone." But I'm no partisan hack, and I think most people who know me can attest to that. 

I don't want your life advice, you got plenty of other shit you yourself needs to worry about.

I said I didn't want your sympathy, I sure as hell don't want your fucked up religious lessons either. My previous takeaway still stands. 

My hostility never came on the Bush argument. It came when you started trying to lecture me like this.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do understand the reasonning behind the american intervention in Iraq. Actually Bush sums up what pushed him to go in Iraq.

It was after 12 years where Saddam starved his people by deturning UN aids, after the own war he created himself against Iran then Koweit, after bombing and gazing Kurds in Halabja.

There was no weapon of mass destruction for certain, but all those things were still very problematic and I do understand the side of those who were pro war.

Actually Kurds have won more autonomy thanks to the war, I would have opposed it because it created a total chaos afterwards in Iraq, but those above mentionned reasons can explain how the pro war side had also really justified "moral arguments".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pringles said:

Based on the intelligence at the time it was not an "illegal war" whatever that means anyways. Faulty and not 100% accurate intelligence does NOT equal a lie. It never does. We have to rely on what we have, and where we are. The facts remain that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous dictator who IF he had gained WOMD... he would have without a doubt exploited them in some way shape or form to get his demands whether that be threatening and killing his own people, or the nations surrounding him. 

Also, there are claims that the WMDs did exist - just that they were moved to Syria...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come to think of it, the Kurds strongly supported the War in Iraq. It's interesting that Saddam tried to exterminate the Kurds with chemical weapons. The Yazidis were supportive of the war to a lesser extent.

Edited by Timur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pilight said:

Grenada was a success because the country had democratic values already in place from their time in the British Commonwealth.  Democracy cannot be imposed at foreign gunpoint in places without a history of free elections.

Fun part is the US did intervene in Grenada...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Patine said:

I'm still clueless what is the allegation here - and completely so - and it seems to be being danced around like saying the Devil, Voldemort, or Juan Peron in 1930's Argentina's name.

"CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us [Muslims in the U.S.] were starting to lose access to our civil liberties." - Ilhan Omar, during a March speech to CAIR (Note: CAIR, or the Council on American-Islamic Relations was founded in 1994, not post-9/11) 

At best, referring to the worst terrorist attack in American history as, "Some People did something", is tone deaf, and I'd argue that interpretation is being way too lenient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

In fact, quoting this for @Cal and @SilentLiberty, who listed as her as unfit for office along with the above mentioned criminals or likely criminals, and @Pringles, @ConservativeElector2, @jvikings1, @DakotaHale, @Beetlejuice, and, notably, @Dobs, who actually put her in the, "Bad People," line with Trump and Gaetz, is there anything more than a tone deaf comment to rank her down with, and below, criminals? I only ever hear people coughing about ONE comment that, while tasteless and completely out-of-place, even perhaps malicious to a number of listeners, is not a crime, and is, in fact, protected by the First Amendment? This is a serious question, as my actual understanding on the issue is limited , but also seeking insight on perspective and proportion - which a lack thereof are big problems in modern society in general.

Who did I list where?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Patine said:

 

The Ilhan Omar poll tab is actually @jvikings1, @Dobs, and @ConservativeElector2. Correction!

I don't think Omar has done anything necessarily criminal... although her campaign in 2018 had financial transparency issues.

But her comments on 9/11 and her seemingly anti-semitic remarks at times places her on the bottom for me. She's a grade A bitch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Patine said:

In fact, quoting this for @Cal and @SilentLiberty, who listed as her as unfit for office along with the above mentioned criminals or likely criminals, and @Pringles, @ConservativeElector2, @jvikings1, @DakotaHale, @Beetlejuice, and, notably, @Dobs, who actually put her in the, "Bad People," line with Trump and Gaetz, is there anything more than a tone deaf comment to rank her down with, and below, criminals? I only ever hear people coughing about ONE comment that, while tasteless and completely out-of-place, even perhaps malicious to a number of listeners, is not a crime, and is, in fact, protected by the First Amendment? This is a serious question, but also seeking insight on perspective and proportion - which a lack thereof are big problems in modern society in general.

I'd like to point out I did not select Gaetz because he has neither been charged nor convicted of anything at this point. Though I do reserve the right to change my answer should anything emerge from the investigation (even if not charged but he is exposed for corruption).

Omar's campaign had some shady business with a campaign consultant (who she ended up marrying, which is a weird story in it of itself). She has also said some stuff that she later claimed was anti-Semitic (not a good look when you are saying that you were engaging in that behavior).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pringles said:

But her comments on 9/11 and her seemingly anti-semitic remarks at times places her on the bottom for me. She's a grade A bitch

In regards to anti-semitism, does she equally dislike Arabic people and other Semitic people? If so, it isn't anti-semitism as much as anti-Israeli or anti-Judaism. For instance, an Arab that hates Jewish people can't be anti-Semitic if he's pro-Arab. 

The next question then is, does she dislike Judaism, Israeli people, the Israeli government, the conservative party of the Israeli government, zionists, or all of these or some of these? Maybe @Dobs @ConservativeElector2 @jvikings1 know more than I do on this. 

I get the ideas that she opposes Zionists and the conservative party of Israel for encroachment into Palestine. If that's the case, it's a little difficult to not see some validity in why she's upset. If she's actually anti-Judaism, then she's just as evil as white supremacist or white nationalist, in my opinion. As one of the few Muslims in Congress, she might see it as her duty to stand of Muslims in her country and worldwide. One can understand that. I think it's also important to say that one can be pro-Palestinian and not anti-Israel. I don't think it's that black and white. That is, one can support and defend Israel in most things while also opposing settlements into the West Bank and Gaza Strip. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, vcczar said:

In regards to anti-semitism, does she equally dislike Arabic people and other Semitic people? If so, it isn't anti-semitism as much as anti-Israeli or anti-Judaism. For instance, an Arab that hates Jewish people can't be anti-Semitic if he's pro-Arab. 

The next question then is, does she dislike Judaism, Israeli people, the Israeli government, the conservative party of the Israeli government, zionists, or all of these or some of these? Maybe @Dobs @ConservativeElector2 @jvikings1 know more than I do on this. 

I get the ideas that she opposes Zionists and the conservative party of Israel for encroachment into Palestine. If that's the case, it's a little difficult to not see some validity in why she's upset. If she's actually anti-Judaism, then she's just as evil as white supremacist or white nationalist, in my opinion. As one of the few Muslims in Congress, she might see it as her duty to stand of Muslims in her country and worldwide. One can understand that. I think it's also important to say that one can be pro-Palestinian and not anti-Israel. I don't think it's that black and white. That is, one can support and defend Israel in most things while also opposing settlements into the West Bank and Gaza Strip. 

I actually don't necessarily agree with the accusations. I find it dangerous to dismiss speech against a Jewish person, political party, nation, etc. as anti-Semitism just because they are Jewish (and same goes for other things such as race, nationality, etc.).

However, Omar admitted that she spoke in anti-Semitic language, which means she is owning up to it. Whether I agree with the accusation or not becomes moot at that point since she confessed to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I might be able to add to Pringles's comment is that she has shown support for the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement, which actually seeks to delegitimize the Israeli state not just the conservative government there. It started with ''don't buy from Jews'' or ''don't associate with Jews'' already once... Even if one's at the Arab side here, you should not advocate for organizations of this type. There are already enough antisemits out there. Any further support only deepens the crisis. 

As I have already stated it's not up to me to determine what is to be judged as criminal under the law. I am just stating my concerns and think, that it could be relevant under hate crime laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

BDS doesn't seem to be any different, at the core of things, as a tactic, than drumming up support to carry on the embargo against Cuba after Obama's brief loosening of said restrictions. It seems a far cry from the Krystalnacht mentality you're stating it to be. But, then again, I believe stopping buying Saudi oil and stopping arming them and sending troops to their defense is much more important Middle Eastern policy, in that regard, anyways.

Israel is the only Jewish state and is being targeted by an embargo of people who dislike the fact it exists. Cuba is being targeted as one of many Hispanic countries for their policies and totalitarianism and oppressing of their people. Quite different targets.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...