The_CerealDefense t1_j19og5v wrote
This just keeps getting stupider. How did this not get vetted
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j1aoolx wrote
It was by his opponent. The media just didn’t care at the time and just crimeposted instead.
[deleted] t1_j1b0fjl wrote
[deleted]
ionsh t1_j1c7hv3 wrote
I went through the site and their latest article is a real head banger
So apparently he's been evicted a few times from previous residences for not paying rent, and neighbors of whatever the address he's using now have never heard of or seen the guy before.
And now - at least according to the article, the guy's on record for having taken money from cousin of some Russian oligarch out of nowhere?
I feel like someone from his district needs to call the Feds, maybe check a couple of things out. JHC.
LonelyGuyTheme t1_j1cz8mp wrote
Wonder articles by The North Shore Leader!
A great example of why local newspapers matter.
My one complaint, neither of these articles have a byline date even though one of them mentions “four months ago “.
You can’t really tell what’s going on with news coverage if you don’t know when it was published. Especially with an ongoing series building up new information with each article.
DigaLaVerdad t1_j1db6y3 wrote
I cannot find the article date.
[deleted] t1_j1dbnqq wrote
[deleted]
DigaLaVerdad t1_j1dcc7z wrote
Thanks
archiotterpup t1_j19wdyg wrote
They're not sending their best.
LonelyGuyTheme t1_j1cza04 wrote
Actually, they ARE sending their best. Sad.
isweatprofusely t1_j1a52ll wrote
Or the dems aren't doing our due diligence.
[deleted] t1_j1af6sf wrote
[deleted]
IRequirePants t1_j1agcm7 wrote
On the one hand, it isn't the Democrats' fault that Santos is a lying piece of shit. On the other-hand, the fact that the state party couldn't find this blatant shit is political malpractice. Were they even trying to win?
[deleted] t1_j1aiyjs wrote
[deleted]
IRequirePants t1_j1anwnb wrote
Democrats aren't responsible for Santos. But they are responsible for Zimmerman. Investigating your opponent for oppo-research is super basic in elections. State party needs to figure out where they fucked up.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j1aorey wrote
Zimmerman brought it up during the campaign.
IRequirePants t1_j1ap5qt wrote
The divorce as oppo-research only really works in the context of everything else being a lie. Gay men have been married to women before. If Zimmerman brought up the other lies, do you have a link? Because this week or so is really the first I am hearing of Santos lying about a charity, about where he worked, and about his Jewish ancestry.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j1aqhql wrote
Yeah no shit, because this is the first time the media actually picked up the story.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/12/house-republicans-george-santos-democrats-ethics/amp
IRequirePants t1_j1aui4y wrote
From the article:
>The document does, however, list Santos’s educational and professional claims without question. The bulk of the 87-page research document leans into Santos’s ties to Trump and his antiabortion stance.
DCCC oppo-research focused on Trump ties and the fake charity, instead of deep-diving his background.
You claim that the media didn't cover it, but the DCCC research didn't cover it either. Which is entirely the point.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j1b11sg wrote
I never said the DCCC covered it, I said his opponent covered it, but the media ignored it.
IRequirePants t1_j1b2wit wrote
> I never said the DCCC covered it, I said his opponent covered i
You haven't shown that though... The only oppo-report is DCCC's, unless you have another?
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j1bbpm5 wrote
As I said before, it’s hard to prove that, because the Zimmerman campaigns complaints were ignored in favor of more crime reporting which played into Santos’ hands.
What oppo there was was covered by small independent news stations
https://www.theleaderonline.com/single-post/santos-filings-now-claim-net-worth-of-11-million
IRequirePants t1_j1bdrqq wrote
>As I said before, it’s hard to prove that, because the Zimmerman campaigns complaints were ignored in favor of more crime reporting which played into Santos’ hands.
This is bullshit and you know it. Campaigns have press releases or statements on their website. This stuff is independent of press coverage.
The oppo presented was about Santos's wealth (which they presented as sketchy but without real evidence of wrongdoing ) and phony charity. Nothing about lying about his ancestry, his employment, or his education.
DCCC and Zimmerman focused more on his anti-abortion views and connection with Trump.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j1bete0 wrote
> The oppo presented was about Santos's wealth (which they presented as sketchy but without real evidence of wrongdoing ) and phony charity.
But it follows the pattern that he’s exaggerated every part of his life and image.
If the media had done its job, it would have followed up on that by pulling on the thread.
> DCCC and Zimmerman focused more on his anti-abortion views and connection with Trump.
To quote a stupid man, that’s bulls hit and you know it.
IRequirePants t1_j1bfpjg wrote
?
[deleted] t1_j1apdjp wrote
[deleted]
IRequirePants t1_j1apobm wrote
>The state republican party needs to deal with its dishonesty and corruption problem. Surely that's the state party you're referring to.
The state Republican party is a burning trash fire and has been for at least a decade. Losing to a burning trash fire should spark introspection.
>Zimmerman pointed out during the campaign that Santos was sketchy.
Do you have a link for Zimmerman calling out specific lies?
[deleted] t1_j1as05y wrote
[removed]
NetQuarterLatte t1_j1ax2vj wrote
>Investigating your opponent for oppo-research is super basic in elections.
They did.
But the media was too busy trying to push their talking points on crimes, and didn't take the stories.
archiotterpup t1_j1bhts5 wrote
LOL. I think it's funny you think Republicans have the principles to take responsibility for their own party. Party politics are scourge.
archiotterpup t1_j1bhoy7 wrote
The NY Dems seriously dropped the ball and handed the GOP control of the House. The entire party needs an overhaul. I'm so mad that we have closed primaries, otherwise I'd change my voter registration to WFP. At least WFP usually has the same slate so they can capture some of the vote.
[deleted] t1_j1bhtwn wrote
[deleted]
archiotterpup t1_j1bhxrx wrote
And he won because the Dems dropped the ball. This would be an issue if the NYSDP didn't suck ass so hard.
[deleted] t1_j1bi89t wrote
[deleted]
mission17 OP t1_j1bj44e wrote
This fraud that wasn’t exposed until this past week? Because of piss poor opposition research?
archiotterpup t1_j1cccjm wrote
Long Island is suburbanite hell. Of course they voted for a lying Republican.
supremeMilo t1_j1avzm4 wrote
Democrats suck at messaging, what wasn’t Zeldins face plastered over a chart with red state murder rates!
[deleted] t1_j1awcd7 wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1awktn wrote
Because Zeldin’s campaign and popularity helped carry multiple House seats for R.
Silver-Hat175 t1_j1e9jhu wrote
Republicans had an advantage in midterms like they always do when a President is Democratic and the economy is bad. It has nothing to do with Zeldin himself. Republicans did not gain as much as they were projected and it is seen as a failure of the party for that. Here you are celebrating victory and making up a reason why a Republican should be praised for it. Do you people ever stop living in your fantasy world you force all others to live in?
supremeMilo t1_j1e9wv2 wrote
Hochul severely underperformed Schumer, and it probably cost the Democrats the house. Zeldin ran a great campaign; even if crime in NYC and NYS is lower than red states, if you let republicans control the narrative on it you will lose/lose seats.
Silver-Hat175 t1_j1glrd2 wrote
The party in charge at midterms always underprerforms. That is how politics in America works and the Democrats did much better than all projections said and past midterms. You are making up reasons for why a party did well based on your feelings when historical facts show otherwise. Another useless troll barking at his shadow and wasting my time.
supremeMilo t1_j1gm06z wrote
New York State Dems got absolutely smoked and have nobody to blame but themselves. Hochul ran a terrible campaign, and let Republicans control the narrative on crime even though NYS and NYC are safer than most Republican states.
If NYS Dems hadn’t lost their congress seats, Dems could have carried the house.
But okay, don’t hold Hochul and the state house accountable for fucking up the maps and their campaigns and enjoy Republican rule.
Silver-Hat175 t1_j1gmsri wrote
26 state senate races... 4 flips. Absolutely smoked? Make up facts on your own time not wasting mine.
supremeMilo t1_j1gmzfn wrote
Democrats would have held the US House of Representatives if Sean Patrick Maloney and the others didn’t run such shit campaigns. Zeldin controlled the messaging on crime and the house races followed.
Silver-Hat175 t1_j1gojgn wrote
Broken record keeps making up what he feels is right. Democrats ran shitty campaigns but did far better than projections and holding the House was going to be impossible. Now I'm going to ignore you. Be gone troll.
supremeMilo t1_j1gom90 wrote
You are talking about national democrats who did great I am talking about NYS Democrats who are an embarrassment.
$800,000,000 for Buffalo stadium, conservative chief Justice nomination… wake the fuck up.
Silver-Hat175 t1_j1gpb9a wrote
me: shows the ratio of GOP flipped as extremely low, 4 in 26 New York races
you: ah HA you are talking about national Democrats!!11
Truly a political science genius not an embarrassing little child cosplaying as a genius
supremeMilo t1_j1gpg5f wrote
4 out of 26 is terrible in a state where the D senator won by 13.2 points.
[deleted] t1_j1awru3 wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1ax66t wrote
Zeldin swung voters to R for all positions, not just Gov.
If Hochul won as hard as Schumer, Dems probably would have carried 3-5 more house seats.
[deleted] t1_j1axbss wrote
[deleted]
ineededanameagain t1_j1bahy5 wrote
Come on dude, I’m about as mainstream liberal as they come. Yes Dems over performed this cycle, but if NY Dems did their job Dems probably hold the house. Zeldin made the race closer, enough to carry Rs down ballot, than it should have been cause Hochul was absent.
[deleted] t1_j1bbui8 wrote
[deleted]
ineededanameagain t1_j1bcbdy wrote
They won in districts Biden won comfortably in 2020, ofc Zeldin had enough of an appeal to peal off independents and moderate/conservatives Dems to vote for Rs in those districts.
[deleted] t1_j1be2a9 wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1axgax wrote
It’s hyper relevant and dolts like you are the reason Democrats will continue losing elections. Hope you enjoy a permanent R scotus.
[deleted] t1_j1axnwz wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1axv1t wrote
And they lost the house specifically because of NYS democrat incompetence.
[deleted] t1_j1aydiv wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1ayquq wrote
That’s a triple down. Not a walk back. Dems fight for better maps, and or Hochul puts up a decent campaign, against Zeldin then we aren’t having this convo because this jackass loses.
[deleted] t1_j1azsj7 wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b049a wrote
NYS Dems lost seats that’s an L. The rest of the country did great.
If you are representative of NYS Dems then the problems are obvious.
[deleted] t1_j1b0p62 wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b13m7 wrote
It’s democrats fault, they lost to him.
Are you so naïve you think republicans gaf who they elect as long as they are a warm body and vote with McCarthy?
[deleted] t1_j1b1ndu wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b1wut wrote
People like you are why the Democrat party sucks.
[deleted] t1_j1b297p wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b2ica wrote
You clearly do or you would not have posted.
> The narrative that this is democrats fault is really something else.
[deleted] t1_j1b2osd wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b2vm3 wrote
Sure thing, enjoy house Republican leadership and keep standing for democrat failures.
[deleted] t1_j1b38h2 wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b3f3h wrote
We thought they imploded when they nominated trump and then they banned abortion in half the states. Typical dem L snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, just like this case in Long Island.
[deleted] t1_j1b3oxq wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b3x5d wrote
I’m a liberal that actually cares about results instead of stanning for democrat party failures.
[deleted] t1_j1b40cj wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b44ui wrote
You are no different from MAGAots who treat politics like a team sport.
[deleted] t1_j1b49wa wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b4ego wrote
I know, that’s how democrats could snatch the L from Santos.
[deleted] t1_j1b5bqk wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b5j3x wrote
Am I repeating the same point, or walking it back? Make up your mind. And right winger lmao? I want the Democrats to succeed, which involves ditching whiny losers like you.
[deleted] t1_j1b5mda wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b5sgn wrote
We need to court sane people; not the ones dragging down the whole country with their state failures.
mission17 OP t1_j1b2djm wrote
Definitely not in New York state, which very well may have cost the Democrats the house. This fact has been well established.
[deleted] t1_j1b2qs0 wrote
[deleted]
mission17 OP t1_j1b2y71 wrote
The connection is pretty obvious, considering we’re talking about a candidate for NY governor and his impact on the US House’s composition.
[deleted] t1_j1b3cl2 wrote
[deleted]
mission17 OP t1_j1b4yhn wrote
I fail to see how criticizing the Democratic Party for not campaigning better in New York State constitutes right-wing rage.
[deleted] t1_j1b5e4d wrote
[deleted]
mission17 OP t1_j1b5z3r wrote
People on the left are clearly allowed to criticize the Democratic Party without being right wing. Especially when they’re criticizing Democrats not taking measures to perform better. Why should the Democratic Party be immune from that criticism?
[deleted] t1_j1b7cgk wrote
[deleted]
mission17 OP t1_j1b80fn wrote
> Zeldin swung voters to R for all positions, not just Gov. If Hochul won as hard as Schumer, Dems probably would have carried 3-5 more house seats.
That’s exactly what is being discussed here. From this very thread. NY Democrats underperforming relative to Democrats nationally and costing Democrats the U.S. House in the process. Maybe you thought you were talking about something else, but regardless, your characterization of the other user is totally unjustified.
isweatprofusely t1_j1akktc wrote
It's not about changing the narrative. We just haven't been sending our best to contest the seat nor have we done our due diligence and they got away with it. The entire midterm election for nys democrats has been a disappointment, it's a travesty that an incumbent governor came that close to losing to a zealot like zeldin. With this guy...grifters gonna grift.
[deleted] t1_j1al4es wrote
[deleted]
isweatprofusely t1_j1alqio wrote
You can blame the Republicans all you want, the only thing we can do is reflect and figure out how we could have done better. The fact is that we didn't give them a run for their money nor did we do our due diligence. These are the candidates GOP are presenting and we can't even muster up a viable campaign.
[deleted] t1_j1alz0t wrote
[deleted]
isweatprofusely t1_j1amw4y wrote
Piss on the gop all you want, it's not going to change anything on their end. What you can control is the type of candidates we support and campaign/vetting the opposition.
[deleted] t1_j1an46n wrote
[deleted]
isweatprofusely t1_j1aqb2b wrote
Lol
mission17 OP t1_j1a6crl wrote
Truly both of these things.
manticore16 t1_j1b3n06 wrote
Considering I saw basically zero Zimmerman signs, this is not incorrect
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1avg2a wrote
I’m as progressive and gay as they get. But like, how do you vet if someone is gay? Why does the media care he divorced a woman?
My mentor in my career is an open and proud gay man, with two kids and an ex wife.
He had a machismo homophobic Italian family and thought he would have to live his life in the closet until he moved to nyc and started living his truth.
The articles I see about this guy not being gay feel like a high school fucking gossip fest. Find something new to talk about. Let this man’s sexuality go. This is making us stupid.
Main_Photo1086 t1_j1brru3 wrote
If he wasn’t lying about everything else in his life, I’d agree. Many gay people have been married to people of the opposite sex. I’m just less likely to believe one of those people is this guy whose name is allegedly “George Santos.”
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1bvsd7 wrote
But like, even if he lying about being gay, why is it any of our business? And how would you prove that unless you conducted a series of creepy purity tests? I hate this. It’s gross
KosherSloth t1_j1ceqjb wrote
are you seriously asking why people care if a politician lies about their sexuality?
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1cm6ni wrote
No, I’m asking why we care. Even if he did lie you have no way of proving it without a series of creepy and overly intrusive purity tests. It’s awful
KosherSloth t1_j1dzj6l wrote
You’re unsure why people are upset that a politician is lying?
edit: politician, not political
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1fueyv wrote
I’m not, I’m asking why people are so determined to figure out his sexuality when it seems like there’s a million things you can accost him for.
KosherSloth t1_j1gmcjv wrote
because lying about being gay is super fucking weird and fucked up?
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1gs5xa wrote
But how do you know he’s lying? Do you see my point? Just by virtue of telling someone they’re lying about being gay makes YOU the weird and fucked up one.
Because once again: it’s none of your business
KosherSloth t1_j1kqv4r wrote
lmao he’s a politician. his personal life is literally a matter of public interest.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1m61zb wrote
Once again, you sound like one of those Obama “truthers”
Main_Photo1086 t1_j1czzyn wrote
That’s not the point. A purity test or whatever would be gross. No one deserves that. But I can’t help you understand if you are hyperfocused on this particular piece when the reason people are pissed is because he has lied about nearly everything he talked about in his bio. This is just part of that long trail of likely lies.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1dtoub wrote
It’s pretty simple. If he’s lying about everything else, focus on the stuff that matters. His sexuality does not.
mission17 OP t1_j1e7qv9 wrote
So if he was lying about his sexuality but not anything else, that would be okay?
His sexuality matters because he foregrounded that identity and explicitly invoked it in his support of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay Bill.” He’s very much advocating for policies that threaten gay people, and he’s using his identity as a gay man, manufactured or real, to justify that.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1ftzb0 wrote
If he was lying about his sexuality you wouldn’t be able to prove it either way and the people trying to find the truth would sound like a bunch of losers on the same level as the losers trying to figure out where Obama was born.
mission17 OP t1_j1fvn89 wrote
At the very least you could verify the claim that he was “openly gay” for a decade. A fact that’s definitely complicated by the fact he had a wife.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1fwd2x wrote
It’s none of your business though. Why do you feel like it’s your business? Do you wanna sleep with him?
mission17 OP t1_j1fynjo wrote
No. But politicians lying about every aspect of their identity to deceive voters is incredibly material to their role as a member of the U.S. House, one of the most powerful people in the country.
It’s our business because he elected to become a public figure and represent himself as openly gay.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1fz7sv wrote
It’s not though. It’s your business if youre a constituent to hold him accountable to the platform you voted him in to execute.
Are you even his constituent?
mission17 OP t1_j1fzvxt wrote
It’s permissible for politicians to lie directly to their constituents so long as he votes for the platform he promised? The bar is in hell.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1g2pj5 wrote
What? it’s not permissible to lie to constituents about anything regarding your platform, your priorities, your strategy, where you get your money, etc.
When did I say it was?
Im done with this argument.
mission17 OP t1_j1g339m wrote
Only okay to lie about your background and who you actually are. Gotcha.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1g6uc2 wrote
Can you prove he’s not gay?
mission17 OP t1_j1g73c1 wrote
Is is incredibly plausible to prove he was not “openly gay.”
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1gs8k3 wrote
What constitutes openly gay?
mission17 OP t1_j1gtwq5 wrote
Sounds like a question he should answer for the public.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1i0hok wrote
You sound just like the truthers convinced Obama wasn’t born in the United States. You realize that?
mission17 OP t1_j1i2nzu wrote
I think the pretty critical difference here is that Obama didn’t conceal a divorce or lie about his entire resume. Context is pretty important here.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1i3svy wrote
You can keep caveating why youre different but at the end of the day, being gay or straight has zero to do with your job as a politician.
Even if you succeeded in finding out if he had a heterosexual past, now what?
In every single scenario you’re the bad person here. Plain and simple.
Why are you so determined to find out this man’s true sexuality?
mission17 OP t1_j1i557p wrote
You seem to be confused about what the problem is here. If Obama had lies about where he grew up, where he went to college, what his ethnicity was, or where he went to school, and there was clear evidence of this, it would be actual concrete evidence indicating he’s a deceptive person and not fit for office.
Of course one can be gay and married to a woman. It’s quite a bit more difficult to be married and “openly gay.” While that is still possible, certainly, it poses some major questions about the truthfulness of this man and his integrity as an elected official that he owes his constituency an answer for.
This isn’t a case of your accountant or mailman not telling you about their divorce, this is a U.S. Representative who will certainly be voting on critical legislation implicating gay rights multiple times through his term. His identity could potentially have no bearing on his job as a politician, but this man has already used his identity to justify anti-LGBTQ legislation. It’s clear it does have a bearing.
I understand you feel any questions about this are off limits and would be totally fine with him lying about his personal life— I do not. I really don’t understand why you feel you should get a veto on these sorts of questions, either, when it’s clear it’s relevant to so many others.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1i7lmc wrote
Sorry I apologize, I didn’t realize you had to be authenticated by the gay society as authentically gay to be allowed to vote on anti gay legislation without facing backlash.
mission17 OP t1_j1i8wtf wrote
I think you should refresh yourself on some gay history and how outing politicians who voted for anti-LGBTQ legislation was critical for the Queer rights movement: https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2019/11/14/how-outing-republican-25-years-ago-changed-politics-forever
In this case the idea is the same. Hold your Representatives who have power over your human rights accountable to honesty.
If a politician wants to use their sexuality to justify an anti-LGBTQ agenda, they can be very much held to account to answer questions about it. I still don’t understand why your indifference to asking politicians difficult questions should preclude anybody else from doing so.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1ixvia wrote
this is no way shape or form related to outing anti gay politicians. That was absolutely necessary.
Maybe you should form the legion of gays to start authorizing who is and isn’t gay since you’re obviously the authority.
mission17 OP t1_j1j4m5i wrote
> this is no way shape or form related to outing anti gay politicians
If you say so, then it must totally be true.
mission17 OP t1_j1azqka wrote
“Openly” is the key word. Did his wife know? Did anybody in his life actually know? Or is he just using this as a front to justify his support of anti-LGBTQ legislation, using the identity as a shield from criticism?
Even if he is gay, but wasn’t out, this is pretty clearly a lie he’s telling to win votes.
It may not be important at all if he wasn’t openly advocating for rolling back the rights of LGBTQ people.
The_CerealDefense t1_j1b12em wrote
I think the assumption (I'm making) was that the marriage was a green card fraud... im sure thats the connections others are making but they cant prove it yet
mission17 OP t1_j1b2731 wrote
I’m not making that assumption and I think it’s fair to call in question even his sexuality. He’s lied about his Jewish ancestry, his parents fleeing the Holocaust, his work history, his educational background, and more. To assume this one aspect of his identity is truthful in light of this new information is an incredibly generous read.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1bw1i1 wrote
This is so fucking creepy, why are you so creepy? How would you even prove that he’s gay or straight without a series of fucking weird purity tests? This is gross. Please stop.
rainzer t1_j1c7cl1 wrote
And you wonder why people can't take progressives seriously. It's creepy to call out a proven pathological liar a liar because he says he's gay? Fuck outta here
koalafly t1_j1cchm9 wrote
Who cares if he’s gay or not? Everything else alleged is 1000x more meaningful and malicious.
rainzer t1_j1eimtw wrote
If you don't care or think it matters, then why do you care if anyone asks if it's the 1359th lie on his list of lies?
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1cmdt6 wrote
I don’t give a flying fuck what you think of me or progressives. I honestly welcome being sidelined by a crowd who is preoccupying themselves with who is and isn’t gay. This is truly disgusting behavior. Look at what you’re defending. It’s despicable.
LonelyGuyTheme t1_j1czrfz wrote
Look at who you’re defending.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1dtx87 wrote
Sorry, are you suggesting I curb my principles for politics? Nah. Not today.
rainzer t1_j1e0b6n wrote
What am I defending?
np for this conversation I am a gay black gangbanger with a kid that didn't get into Stuy because of asians and jews so I should be allowed to kill those old ladies np. You can't question me cause that'd be fuckin creepy. Why so creepy man
LonelyGuyTheme t1_j1czn47 wrote
If the man lies about everything else, it’s reasonable, to assume he may be lying about being gay too.
Is there any record of him sharing he is a gay before he announced his candidacy for office? His candidacy announcement, just 12 days after divorcing a woman?
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1du6ld wrote
If he lies about everything else.
Talk 👏 about 👏 something 👏 else 👏
yallaretheworst t1_j1gdd0m wrote
But he’s said he’s been openly gay for a decade. I think that’s more the issue. Like if the wife was from ten years ago sure. But it’s just that he’s lied about everything. So.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1gscsl wrote
So find something else he’s lying about and focus on that? See. It’s easy. He lied about his career. Horrible piece of shit. He should step down. Ez.
But his sexuality? This ain’t any of our business
yallaretheworst t1_j1ib2qy wrote
It is our business if he made it a campaign issue. The dude loves the anti-gay bill in Florida. Him being gay is absolutely up for discussion
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1ixmqy wrote
Sorry I didn’t realize being an authorized gay by the gay society was a prerequisite for trying to pass a don’t say gay bill. I just thought being a horrible person was the only prerequisite required. I’ll try to check my preconceptions from now on.
yallaretheworst t1_j1kdf0l wrote
If you do something to harm a marginalized community, it’s news if you are or are lying about being a member of that community. It is not rocket science dude
koalafly t1_j1ccm95 wrote
Don’t care if he’s gay or not but everything else called out is 1000x worse and more malicious if true (and the non-denials sure make it seem like it is).
carpy22 t1_j1aieut wrote
This wasn't even his first time on the ballot. He lost to Suozzi in 2020.
The_CerealDefense t1_j1aiwre wrote
Yeah this was before that (we're on the same page)
_Maxolotl t1_j1dmqw5 wrote
Somewhere out there, Julia Salazar is holding Santos' beer.
yallaretheworst t1_j1gdhbs wrote
YES SERIOUSLY
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments