Comments
Guypussy t1_j2s1j41 wrote
He’s already there!
(Saw a pic on Twitter a few minutes ago.)
The_CerealDefense t1_j2sq9im wrote
He doesn’t seem to give a fuck. The tight speaker vote may have saved him.
Grass8989 t1_j2s1190 wrote
Can we talk about making “George Santos Megathread” at this point?
movingtobay2019 t1_j2sejsp wrote
This is a reality show at this point.
Silvery_Silence t1_j2sszj8 wrote
When are the inevitable sexual misconduct allegations surfacing? Also would love to know where he got the $700,000 that mysteriously and miraculously appeared in order to fund his campaign.
Revir_Nosduh t1_j2urq0x wrote
“Rep. Ritchie Torres, a New York Democrat, has also put forward the Stop Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker (SANTOS) Act, which would require candidates to disclose certain elements of their background under oath, so that they can be punished for lying.”
Holy shit that’s gold.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j2spbap wrote
George Santos should be removed from office by the voters in his district, and it's a real shame that voters don't have the right to do that. And the GOP will deserve all the negative consequences for not pushing him out.
The guy is an obvious liar.
What's interesting is that this whole episode provided cover for all the bigots to come out in the open with all the bigoted logic they always had, but were held back because of a lack of a target that was sufficiently unsympathetic.
- People who suddenly became anti-tenant (because he didn't pay his rent).
- People who suddenly were okay with questioning someone's racial background, sexual orientation and nationality.
- People who suddenly became tough on crime gloating for a 5-year sentence for stealing shoes. And now gloating on his stealing a phone and not going to work.
- People who suddenly became okay with over-tuning the will of the voters.
The_CerealDefense t1_j2sqsll wrote
Recalls generally are just a political nonsense tool in the US unfortunately. Not that Santos should be in office, and this is the exact type of thing a recall is supposed to be able to fix, but recalls across the board are mostly a bad idea because it essentially turns your entire tenure into a constant political campaign among other negatives. It’s got pros and cons
Anyways I think you specifically cannot recall federally elected people only state.
mission17 t1_j2svcra wrote
You’re absolutely correct. Also worth noting this user has been pretty open about their affinity for recalls coming from the particular desire to push out the Manhattan DA whose policies they don’t care for because they’re not right-wing “hard-on-crime” enough.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j2swxkm wrote
The DA office is distinct from other elected offices.
And the lack of rights to fire DA Bragg introduced a distortion in the midterm elections, because it became a governor's election issue unnecessarily.
DAs are attorneys, and the people in the district they represent should have the right to fire them at any time and for any reason.
Just like any other attorney in NY can be fired by their client at any time and for any reason.
https://ww2.nycourts.gov/attorneys/clientsrights.shtml:
>you have the right to discharge your attorney and terminate the attorney-client relationship at any time.
mission17 t1_j2sxapn wrote
Reminder that I work in the law. Your are not personally Bragg’s client and you don’t get to terminate him from office on behalf of Manhattan just because your feelings are hurt. He’s an elected official. Try it in an election.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j2szelz wrote
>Try it in an election.
A ballot should be a fine way to determine the will of the people in the district with respect to hiring and firing the district attorney.
mission17 t1_j2szu86 wrote
We have already had a ballot and will have another one. You’re conservative and aware of the fact that conservatives use recalls to take advantage of low turnout which represents the will of the people significantly less. This was the blueprint in San Francisco.
Just because it gives you the outcome you want doesn’t mean it represents the will of the people. Regular elections do that just fine.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j2t1or3 wrote
>Aw have already had a ballot and will have another one. You’re conservative and aware of the fact that conservatives use recalls to take advantage of low turnout which represents the will of the people significantly less. This was the blueprint in San Francisco.
Your comment is redefining what it means to be out of touch from the reality: when someone believes the majority of the voters in SF are conservative (in a vote turn out that far exceeded the ballot which elected Chesa Boudin in the first place)
​
>Just because it gives you the outcome you want doesn’t mean it represents the will of the people. Regular elections do that just fine.
If the ballot decides to recall, yes, it does represent the will of the people.
Though I don't know if the result would be the removal of DA Bragg or not.
But I do know the lack of such outlet for voters to express such will has spilled over to the governor's election unnecessary.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j2svqkr wrote
I think material lies during a campaign that informed voters decision during the election should be one of the components to qualify a recall vote of a congressperson. I hope episodes like this highlight the need for such mechanisms.
I also think there should be something like fundraising fraud based on material lies.
mission17 t1_j2st69r wrote
It’s amazing how far you are willing to bend all sense and logic to defend a proven pathological liar from scrutiny and criticism.
Being skeptical if somebody who has lied about everything is telling the truth is in no way irrational. It’s pretty much why most regular users in this sub are skeptical about many of the things you say here, too— because you lie and manipulate the truth. Frequently.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j2sydot wrote
Definitively take my comments with skepticism, specially if my comments calling out the widespread bigoted mindset in this episode may have made you uncomfortable.
In general it'd be extremely foolish for anyone to not take any comment on the internet with skepticism. But I think the attentive readers already knows that.
mission17 t1_j2sz1qz wrote
“It’s bigoted to ask if a liar is lying” is definitely a new one. Hope it works out for you. I’m going to put that up there with you blaming AOC for BLM protests, your unfounded conspiracy theory that there was a mass murder coverup on Riker’s Island, and your insistence that crime in New York City is so much worse than smaller cities (despite the fact it is significantly less per capita here) simply because the density of the city is higher.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j2t09fn wrote
>I’m going to put that up there with you blaming AOC for BLM protests, your unfounded conspiracy theory that there was a mass murder coverup on Riker’s Island, and your insistence that crime in New York City is so much worse than smaller cities (despite the fact it is significantly less per capita here) simply because the density of the city is higher.
Your distorted and simplistic summary is a great example of your inability to grasp any nuanced topic (which I def. tried to walk you through multiple times).
It's unsurprising that you might be feeling uncomfortable with me calling out bigoted mindset. The lack of nuance goes hand-in-hand.
mission17 t1_j2t0pgj wrote
Nuance =/ mean totally distorted use of statistics. You’ve been called out on this multiple times and can really only be assumed to be a bad faith actor at this point.
Hope this bigotry point catches on for you, though. Santos is definitely the type of upstanding figure whose lies should be tolerated, and you’re just the right person to advocate for him.
LivefromPhoenix t1_j2t7xcm wrote
>Hope this bigotry point catches on for you, though.
People like him don't really have any other talking point this time. Santos is so indefensible the only viable strategy is attacking the people criticizing him with whatever they can, regardless of how clumsily it comes out.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j2t6pg9 wrote
>Santos is definitely the type of upstanding figure whose lies should be tolerated, and you’re just the right person to advocate for him.
Not only you're not capturing nuance, but it seems that you're reverting back to misrepresenting other people's comments.
mission17 t1_j2t8qea wrote
You’re literally calling people bigots for questioning him on things he obviously misrepresented. People can have whatever opinions they want about those the things he’s done and the punishment he may receive for them while also find lying about them totally unacceptable for a Congressman. Try that for nuance.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j2tiho2 wrote
>You’re literally calling people bigots for questioning him on things he obviously misrepresented.
Your comment here captures your lack of nuance neatly. Because your comment mistakenly equates "questioning the approach" with "defending the guy".
You seem to believe that a bigoted approach is justified when a person like George Santos deserves shunning.
Just like you seem to believe due process doesn't deserve court protection if the prosecutorial overreach seems to favor a favored political angle.
There's plenty of material to criticize George Santos without having to resort to bigotry and without advancing authoritarian gloating that mirrors the mindset logic typical of far-right conservatives and far-left fringe groups.
mission17 t1_j2tl172 wrote
I'm sorry that questioning if a known liar is continuing to be dishonest is somehow an unethical approach for you. Most reasonable people can see past this and recognize it's just more right-wing drivel from you. Deflect, deflect, and deflect from the actual exposed grifting and blame the left for having the gall to ask these questions in the first place.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j2tnnq5 wrote
I have no problem with exposing grift. In fact, I advocate for more effective mechanisms such as allowing his outright removal by the will of the voters.
That's more effective and preferable (in my opinion) in dealing with the problem, and as a side-effect there will be no need to gloat on a justice-porn-fantasy where George Santos falls flat on his face if only the public exposes and shame him enough.
My problem is with the (wittingly or unwittingly) promotion of bigotry that comes along with such crowd driven effect of unquenchable thirst for public shaming.
I've been putting you on the unwittingly category. But now I can't say that you're unaware anymore.
mission17 t1_j2ton4v wrote
So... you're telling everybody else to stop exposing the continued lies because you've seen enough and any more exposure makes you uncomfortable. I don't see at all how this constitutes bigotry. It's nobody else's fault that calls for accountability make you uncomfortable.
His removal by voters in a recall is quite seriously not constitutional. And we recognize that you just want that mechanism so you can remove your least favorite leadership on the left in a tit-for-tat, as you've made clear yourself.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j2uf6b9 wrote
>you're telling everybody else to stop exposing the continued lies because you've seen enough and any more exposure makes you uncomfortable.
Just stop with the bigotry.
It doesn't make me uncomfortable, but it is one of the things that has been plaguing our country.
​
>I don't see at all how this constitutes bigotry.
That's exactly the problem, isn't it?
Self-awareness is usually hard earned.
jumbod666 t1_j2t9l85 wrote
You know there is a process in the constitution to get rid of bad house members
[deleted] t1_j2v4rjn wrote
[deleted]
Jimmy_kong253 t1_j2u313n wrote
The guy just looks like a corrupt politician from the movies or the grand theft auto games
Marlsfarp t1_j2ryq6w wrote
Hopefully he never goes to work at his new job either.