George Santos

[Darat]

Is there a way for a congress person to be recalled?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Darat

Is there a way for a congress person to be recalled?

No. The only way to get rid of him is to persuade him to resign -- fat chance -- or expel him -- fatter chance.
https://www.thoughtco.com/can-member...called-3368240

[seayakin]

Originally Posted by Darat

Is there a way for a congress person to be recalled?

There is not a way to recall him. My understanding is the only way is to remove him is based on a 2/3 vote from the house which would be presumably based on ethics violations and or criminal charges.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

He made believe he was someone that he is not. He did not allow his voters to know who he actually was on Election Day. That's grounds for expulsion.

He's not George Santos? I mean, at that point maybe you have something.

That he lied about everything about himself isn't that. Even if he defrauded his donors that's a criminal issue. Unseating a member of Congress is deeply anti-democratic, and doing so based on appraisal of conduct prior to being in congress is a terrible idea for a whole slew of reasons.

The whole "did not allow the voters to know who he was" doesn't really play when the local paper is telling people who he was.

[Segnosaur]

Re: Santos claiming radiation therapy lowered his immunity....

Originally Posted by slyjoe

Isn't immunodeficiency from radiation temporary?

It may not even have applied in his case.

I went through radiation therapy (neck cancer) in the middle of The covid pandemic. I asked the doctor about vaccination, immunity, etc. and was told it was not a problem.

Unless I understood wrong... Whether it affects your immunity probably depends on where the radiation was directed. The head doesn't play a big role in producing white blood cells so getting treatment for brain cancer wouldn't have affected his immunity at all.

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

[JoeMorgue]

He told everyone who he was when he ran as a Republican.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

....
The whole "did not allow the voters to know who he was" doesn't really play when the local paper is telling people who he was.

What's the circulation of "the local paper?" It's certainly not comparable to the NY Times or Post or Newsday. Other outlets didn't pick up the story. The fact that local Republican leaders have called for his resignation is a pretty clear indicator that most voters didn't actually vote for what they actually got.

ETA: The North Shore Leader is a weekly paper with a circulation of 20,000. Not many people would have seen their stories.

A PBS interview with the paper's publisher.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/sm...ember-election

[dudalb]

I think, in Private, the Dems don't want Santos to quit. He is doing more damage to the GOP House's image then they could hope to do in a hundred years.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I think, in Private, the Dems don't want Santos to quit. He is doing more damage to the GOP House's image then they could hope to do in a hundred years.

The fact that anyone can still make that argument with a straight face after Trump, Boebart, Gantz, etc, etc, etc and a bolt of lightning doesn't hit them is all the proof you need there is no God.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by Bob001

What's the circulation of "the local paper?" It's certainly not comparable to the NY Times or Post or Newsday.

The information was 100% out there.

If the apathy of the voting process bothers you look at the system. Unseating an elected legislator isn't fixing that and the cure would be way worse than the disease. There are massive problems here and that lying goofball scammer being in congress is the least of them.

They elected a cipher and those that claim to be hoodwinked should hang their heads in shame instead. It wasn't like this guy is even that good at lying.

Quote:

Other outlets didn't pick up the story. The fact that local Republican leaders have called for his resignation is a pretty clear indicator that most voters didn't actually vote for what they actually got.

It's at best buyers remorse. At this point now that he and they are a national punchline of course people are going to play the victim. However, we live in a world where Hershel Walker almost won a senate seat with a comparable track record so lets not be gullible and assume this goes any differently if Santos' life story was directly beamed into the brains of these voters.

The local GOP officials have no business playing the victim. If they were capable of shame they should resign. It is a toss up whether it is worse that they knew or that they didn't know.

The whole thing has "let's prevent fascism by having it arrested" vibe. Or "prevent socialism in social media by nationalizing facebook."

Protecting democracy by tossing out the results of an election because people were fooled by a mediocre at best conman is right up there. It's facially absurd.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

He's not George Santos? I mean, at that point maybe you have something.

That he lied about everything about himself isn't that. Even if he defrauded his donors that's a criminal issue. Unseating a member of Congress is deeply anti-democratic, and doing so based on appraisal of conduct prior to being in congress is a terrible idea for a whole slew of reasons.

The whole "did not allow the voters to know who he was" doesn't really play when the local paper is telling people who he was.

I disagree. He lied about who he was to the voters. To the voters, he was Jewish. To the voters he had relatives that died in the Holocaust. To the voters his mother died on 911.

To the voters he graduated with a degree in economics and finance from Baruch College.

To voters he attended New York University. Or was it Columbia? Doesn't matter. He didn't attend either.

To the voters he went Horace Mann School a prestigious private academy. He didn't

His campaign bio states he worked at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. Didn't work at either.

His campaign bio says he is married to a gay man. Is he? There is no marriage record.

He said his mother's life was taken by the attacks on 911. He said she was in the South Tower that day. She wasn't. She was in Brazil. She died 14 years later.

This is just a few of the untruths.

And you're saying the only legitimate reason to expel him from Congress is if he lied about his label?

Seriously?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

.....
Protecting democracy by tossing out the results of an election because people were fooled by a mediocre at best conman is right up there. It's facially absurd.

He won by extensive fraud, pure and simple, and we don't usually reward fraud.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Bob001

He won by extensive fraud, pure and simple, and we don't usually reward fraud.

Problem is the knd of fraud he used is not a criminal offense..except for the campaing fund lies. Padding your resume, however reprehesnible, is not illegal.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Problem is the knd of fraud he used is not a criminal offense..except for the campaing fund lies. Padding your resume, however reprehesnible, is not illegal.

But if someone gets any other job by lying about their qualifications on their resume and their employer subsequently discovers it they are promptly fired. Why should this job be treated differently?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Problem is the knd of fraud he used is not a criminal offense..except for the campaing fund lies. Padding your resume, however reprehesnible, is not illegal.

Originally Posted by Pixel42

But if someone gets any other job by lying about their qualifications on their resume and their employer subsequently discovers it they are promptly fired. Why should this job be treated differently?

Exactly!!

What do you think your new employer Bank of America would do if you stated on your resume you graduated with a degree in economics and finance from a prestigious university and had been employed by Goldman Sachs and Citigroup only to find out you were a high school dropout with a GED?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

But if someone gets any other job by lying about their qualifications on their resume and their employer subsequently discovers it they are promptly fired. Why should this job be treated differently?

Because it is an elected office. And except in severe circumstances, the will of the voters, however stupid, should be respected.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Because it is an elected office. And except in severe circumstances, the will of the voters, however stupid, should be respected.

Your argument is basically caveat emptor. You're not protecting democracy, you're protecting fraud.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Because it is an elected office. And except in severe circumstances, the will of the voters, however stupid, should be respected.

These are severe circumstances. The will of the voters was not reflected in the result.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Problem is the knd of fraud he used is not a criminal offense..except for the campaing fund lies. Padding your resume, however reprehesnible, is not illegal.

It doesn't have to be illegal to be a firing offense.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Bob001

It doesn't have to be illegal to be a firing offense.

I agree, and I think he should resign, but I am just reluctant to overule the voters except in out and out criminal or other extreme cases. So far, I don't see that here.
That might change if more evidence about his misuse of campaing funds comes out.
And forgive if I think this was a democract alot of people here would be a lot more forgiving.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by seayakin

There is not a way to recall him. My understanding is the only way is to remove him is based on a 2/3 vote from the house which would be presumably based on ethics violations and or criminal charges.

It would take a constituional admendment to allow a House member to be recalled.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by dudalb

It would take a constituional admendment to allow a House member to be recalled.

Right. But he can be impeached and removed from office. And the Speaker can make him persona non grata.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Right. But he can be impeached and removed from office. And the Speaker can make him persona non grata.

No, impeachment is a different process for different officials. The House can expel him by two-thirds vote.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by dudalb

....
And forgive if I think this was a democract alot of people here would be a lot more forgiving.

Why would you think that? What Democrat has ever behaved like this? Democrats have been forced out of office for much less.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Why would you think that? What Democrat has ever behaved like this? Democrats have been forced out of office for much less.

Because I think some people here have huge political blinders on, frankly.
Look, I think Santos is scum and should resign,and it speakes very badly for the GOP House leadership that they have embraced him, but something tells me if the Dems were in the same situation..holding on to a majority by the skin of their teeth....they would be more forgiving.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Bob001

No, impeachment is a different process for different officials. The House can expel him by two-thirds vote.

Correct. My mistake. It doesn't require a trial in the Senate.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Because I think some people here have huge political blinders on, frankly.
Look, I think Santos is scum and should resign,and it speakes very badly for the GOP House leadership that they have embraced him, but something tells me if the Dems were in the same situation..holding on to a majority by the skin of their teeth....they would be more forgiving.

That may be probable. Still it doesn't address the fraud which should be grounds for dismissal.

[Norman Alexander]

If Santos was a Democrat, the GOP would be baying for his blood and his head on a pike on the Capitol steps.

[Skeptic Ginger]

In this video it's more clear this is Santos in drag at a drag show: Twitter thread with the video (You don't need to be logged in.)

Halfway through this very short clip the person in question comes up the stairs and that's where he looks the most like Santos. Scroll down to see a scar on his face pointed out that matches his current image. And I don't have a link to it but apparently he admitted it was him years ago when it wasn't an issue.

Mind you the issue here isn't that he dressed in drag. The issue is how the GOP feels about drag queens and the LGBTQ+ community.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

If Santos was a Democrat, the GOP would be baying for his blood and his head on a pike on the Capitol steps.

I would hope that under current circumstances the Democratic Party wouldn't have backed this guy and/or he would have lost in the primary.

[I Am The Scum]

Apparently there's video now

[dann]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

But if someone gets any other job by lying about their qualifications on their resume and their employer subsequently discovers it they are promptly fired. Why should this job be treated differently?

In a representative democracy, it's OK for you to cheat voters. It's the art of the deal: They give you the power to decide on their behalf. You just have to see to it that you get elected, no matter how many lies it takes and how many empty promises to the voters you have to make. Once elected, you are free to 'represent' them for the rest of the term they elected you for.

Quote:

"elected officials are not required to fulfill promises made before their election and are able to promote their own self-interests once elected.

In fact, the representatives are not even required to be who they say they are. They can lie about almost everything. In the USA, for some weird reason, if you run for president, it seems to be a requirement that you are actually born in the USA, but apart from that ...

Quote:

The empirical research shows that representative systems tend to be biased towards the representation of more affluent classes, to the detriment of the population at large.

And that is obviously how it is meant to be in a representative democracy. Campaign contributions, lobbyism, PACs help to make sure that the 1% get to make all real decisions, while the voters are being misdirected with the war on Xmas, drag shows or similar stuff.

There are an awful lot of ought to's and high ideals in representative democracy, but its purpose is to set the power to make decisions free from voters:

Quote:

it ought to be the happiness and glory of a Representative, to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the Law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

In other words, if he doesn't screw you, he isn't doing his job. That's how he serves you!

So George Santos should not sacrifice his judgement to the opinion of his voters. It wouldn't be a proper democracy if he did. The voters, on the other hand, should respect his mature judgement and his enlightened conscience and leave him alone and let him decide on their behalf. After all, they voted for him, i.e. they deposited their influence on state affairs in his hands, they gave him the power to make decisions according to his own unbiassed opinion for the next four (or how long it may be) years.
And that's the beauty of being a voter: There's one born every minute even if they only get to vote every four years.

Being a representative just isn't a job like any other job, which, I assume, is the reason why dudalb is so forgiving and asking us to consider how other representatives would have behaved, which is setting the bar pretty low.

All quotations from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I agree, and I think he should resign, but I am just reluctant to overule the voters except in out and out criminal or other extreme cases. So far, I don't see that here.
That might change if more evidence about his misuse of campaing funds comes out.
And forgive if I think this was a democract alot of people here would be a lot more forgiving.

Hell, no! If a Dem did this, I'd be saying the same thing: resign, you lying SOB!

[dann]

But when you and those people view this story, you don't consider who sacked that vet and made him and his dog homeless, do you?! It's the kind of story that you would find next to a perseverance porn story: How did they end up in conditions where they could be exploited by guys like Trump or Santos is not really a question that concerns us much.

[dann]

Do you expect him to resign just because you say so?

[Stacyhs]

I've compared several photos of Santos to the much clearer one provided by Ziprhead. It's definitely Santos; the nose and teeth are identical.

I don't care if he drag queens all day and all night. It's his lies that concern me. They're not exaggerations or embellishments; they are egregious and mind-numbingly numerous and are indicative of someone with a severe case of pathological or compulsive lying. THAT is not something we can handwave away in a member of Congress...or in the White House.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by dann

Do you expect him to resign just because you say so?

What kind of silly question is that?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by dann

But when you and those people view this story, you don't consider who sacked that vet and made him and his dog homeless, do you?! It's the kind of story that you would find next to a perseverance porn story: How did they end up in conditions where they could be exploited by guys like Trump or Santos is not really a question that concerns us much.

Wow. Can you strawman this any more than that? Santos' stealing the money has zero to do with why or how the vet became homeless.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

He's not George Santos? I mean, at that point maybe you have something.

That he lied about everything about himself isn't that. Even if he defrauded his donors that's a criminal issue. Unseating a member of Congress is deeply anti-democratic, and doing so based on appraisal of conduct prior to being in congress is a terrible idea for a whole slew of reasons.

The whole "did not allow the voters to know who he was" doesn't really play when the local paper is telling people who he was.

Fraudsters deceive people all the time. They don't get a pass because "the people should have known better". They go to jail! The people they conned do not go to jail. They are called victims.

If I applied for any job and it was immediately discovered that I'd lied about my education, my arrest record, and/or my experience, I would be fired immediately. And if I wasn't I definitely could be.

I think we need to start holding the people running the country to at least that standard. Do you?

[dann]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

What kind of silly question is that?

Saying. Handwaving. Empty gestures. It's his right to be a member of Congress. He was elected, and that's what electing is all about.