• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

George Santos charged with defrauding campaign donors

mgidm86 said:
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?
Click to expand...


You don't seem to understand the difference between "any job" and the 'job' of being an elected representative.
 
The problem with making telling the truth a requirement for taking office is where does one draw the line.

If Santos told one less lie should he be booted without a 2/3 vote from the House.
What about 3 fewer lies?
10 fewer lies?

Or is the requirement going to be not a single solitary lie?
 
Ladewig said:
The problem with making telling the truth a requirement for taking office is where does one draw the line.

If Santos told one less lie should he be booted without a 2/3 vote from the House.
What about 3 fewer lies?
10 fewer lies?

Or is the requirement going to be not a single solitary lie?
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the issue of scale here in your effort to basque in the glow of false equivalences.
 
Ladewig said:
The problem with making telling the truth a requirement for taking office is where does one draw the line.

If Santos told one less lie should he be booted without a 2/3 vote from the House.
What about 3 fewer lies?
10 fewer lies?

Or is the requirement going to be not a single solitary lie?
Click to expand...

Why not a minimum of honesty? With this guys background, he isn't qualified for the bare minimum of tech or finance jobs. Yet it's ok for him to be a US Congressman sitting on the Science committee?

I think if you post information about yourself on your campaign bio and it's demonstrably false you should be ineligible for the office you're seeking. PERIOD.
 
acbytesla said:
dann said:
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.
Click to expand...

Was he? I thought his district elected a graduate from Baruch University with a degree in economics and finance. Not a high school dropout. Silly me.
Click to expand...


Yes, he was elected! He was elected by lying to his constituents (to his party, too, but they were well aware what he was up to and approved), he managed to make them elect him. They gave him the power to make decisions on their behalf.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand this principle?! The voters gave him the right, and now he doesn't have to concern himself with their wishes or needs for the next couple of years and he is (more or less) free to sell his decision-making powers to the highest bidder. That's representative democracy!

His own conscience and "Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable," are all that matters. He just has to convince them, not people who voted for him, that he is doing the right thing, and we all know how easy it is to convince those entities ...
 
dann said:
Yes, he was elected! He was elected by lying to his constituents (to his party, too, but they were well aware what he was up to and approved), he managed to make them elect him. They gave him the power to make decisions on their behalf.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand this principle?! The voters gave him the right, and now he doesn't have to concern himself with their wishes or needs for the next couple of years and he is (more or less) free to sell his decision-making powers to the highest bidder. That's representative democracy!

His own conscience and "Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable," are all that matters. He just has to convince them, not people who voted for him, that he is doing the right thing, and we all know how easy it is to convince those entities ...
Click to expand...
So, if he got the position of a bank president, voted on by the board with a contract lasting 2 years, he shouldn't face any repercussions if it is found that 99% of his resume was false? I find the defence "but he was elected" to be puerile. An entity with the name George Santos was elected under false pretences, now that they know the truth a majority of his electorate are calling for him to go but your response is "tough - caveat emptor". That isn't democracy, that is fraud on a grand scale and there should be repercussions for it.
 
acbytesla said:
Why not a minimum of honesty? With this guys background, he isn't qualified for the bare minimum of tech or finance jobs. Yet it's ok for him to be a US Congressman sitting on the Science committee?
Click to expand...

Yes, apparently! And your first question answers itself: Honesty wouldn't get him elected!

I think if you post information about yourself on your campaign bio and it's demonstrably false you should be ineligible for the office you're seeking. PERIOD.
Click to expand...


But reality tells you that what you think is wrong. It is obvious that lying doesn't make you ineligible for the office you're seeking! (Unless you are lying about being born in the USA.) On the contrary, it gets you elected. You can lie to your constituents, and you can make promises that you never in a million years intend to keep. That's representative democracy.
 
I do think a good "democratic" governance system will have a mechanism for their constituents to recall them.
 
Parsman said:
So, if he got the position of a bank president, voted on by the board with a contract lasting 2 years, he shouldn't face any repercussions if it is found that 99% of his resume was false? I find the defence "but he was elected" to be puerile. An entity with the name George Santos was elected under false pretences, now that they know the truth a majority of his electorate are calling for him to go but your response is "tough - caveat emptor". That isn't democracy, that is fraud on a grand scale and there should be repercussions for it.
Click to expand...

Darat said:
I do think a good "democratic" governance system will have a mechanism for their constituents to recall them.
Click to expand...

I agree with both of you.
 
dann said:
Yes, apparently! And your first question answers itself: Honesty wouldn't get him elected!




But reality tells you that what you think is wrong. It is obvious that lying doesn't make you ineligible for the office you're seeking! (Unless you are lying about being born in the USA.) On the contrary, it gets you elected. You can lie to your constituents, and you can make promises that you never in a million years intend to keep. That's representative democracy.
Click to expand...

The main problem is that some guy called George Santos was elected to US Congress by the good folks of Long Island, but this compulsive liar named Anthony Devolder has taken his place in the House and is pretending to be him. If that's not voter fraud then I don't know what is!

Then again, it's no problem for the GOP, who let some piss-weak lying asshat called Donald Trump pretend to be US President for four years. ;)
 
Parsman said:
So, if he got the position of a bank president, voted on by the board with a contract lasting 2 years, he shouldn't face any repercussions if it is found that 99% of his resume was false? I find the defence "but he was elected" to be puerile. An entity with the name George Santos was elected under false pretences, now that they know the truth a majority of his electorate are calling for him to go but your response is "tough - caveat emptor". That isn't democracy, that is fraud on a grand scale and there should be repercussions for it.
Click to expand...


Why do you guys keep bringing other jobs into this. He didn't get the position of bank president, did he?

You completely misunderstand what I am writing if you think that it's a "defence" of anything. Do you actually think that representative democracy is a good thing? Honorable and dignified and worth defending? It's a system of government that makes people hand over decision-making to others who get to decide on their behalf rendering them more or less impotent. The representative gets to decide. They don't. He's the Decider! (In the case of Santos, it's on a pretty small scale.)

And the constituents now know the truth about George Santos, but they obviously don't know the truth about how representative democracy works. Neither do you, apparently.
 
dann said:
Why do you guys keep bringing other jobs into this. He didn't get the position of bank president, did he?

You completely misunderstand what I am writing if you think that it's a "defence" of anything. Do you actually think that representative democracy is a good thing? Honorable and dignified and worth defending? It's a system of government that makes people hand over decision-making to others who get to decide on their behalf rendering them more or less impotent. The representative gets to decide. They don't. He's the Decider! (In the case of Santos, it's on a pretty small scale.)

And the constituents now know the truth about George Santos, but they obviously don't know the truth about how representative democracy works. Neither do you, apparently.
Click to expand...

As I explained above, they are not actually getting the representative, and the representation, they thought they were getting and voted for in good faith. THAT'S the problem.
 
Darat said:
I do think a good "democratic" governance system will have a mechanism for their constituents to recall them.
Click to expand...


Why do you think that representative democray makes such a big deal out of separating people from power, of making them hand over decision-making to representatives?

In my own country:
§ 56 Folketingsmedlemmerne er ene bundet ved deres overbevisning og ikke ved nogen forskrift af deres vælgere.
Paragraph 56 of the Danish constitution (Folketinget - the Danish parliament)
Click to expand...
Translation: The members of Folketinget are bound only by their convictions and not by any directions from their constituents.

There's a new war on the horizon? Or a pandemic? Climate change? Sick leave?
Sorry, but you don't have a say in this. It's all up to your elected representatives, and you don't get to tell them what to do. You have left it to George Santos to decide.
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
As I explained above, they are not actually getting the representative, and the representation, they thought they were getting and voted for in good faith. THAT'S the problem.
Click to expand...


The problem is that they voted in faith, whether good or not.
 
Last edited:
Somebody was asleep at the switch

Upon initial examination Robert Zimmerman was hardly an objectionable candidate, and I have heard that this district was considered a safe seat for democrats (Zimmerman lost 54 to 46 percent). One group that should be ashamed of its performance is the leadership of the Democratic Party. They should have given Zimmerman's campaign more money or spent it themselves to publicize the exploits of the talented Mr. Santos. "Much of that so-called “opposition research” had appeared in various news outlets prior to the election. But no press release from the Zimmerman campaign, the state Democratic Party or the DCCC referenced the bulk of the Times reporting, which focused on the many alleged fabrications included as part of Santos’ resume as well as dug deeper into the animal rescue nonprofit Santos claimed to have founded." link

That having been said, I get the impression that the party did do something. "He [Zimmerman] pointed to an 87-page opposition research document the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released that could have led to national exposure of Santos as a person unworthy of the office before voters went to the ballot booth."
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
You seem to be missing the issue of scale here in your effort to basque in the glow of false equivalences.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, scale is exactly what I am talking about. Almost all of us agree 60 lies is too much. But we still have to agree on a number that is the cutoff line for having too many lies. Is 30 an acceptable cutoff? 15? 7? Or as some here say is one proveably false statement enough to nix a candidate?

If we go with one, then does mean that H. Clinton is ineligible because of her claim that she came under fire at an airport?

……
And what if the provably false statement is based on misremembering something rather than intending to deceive people. If a senator says “10 years ago, I voted against senate bill S123,” but it turns out that person voted for the bill. Does that provably false statement count as a lie?

And how recent do these lies have to be? Does a 15-year-old lie count as part of a candidate’s lie tally?
……
As for comparing this job to other jobs with a fiduciary duty, other jobs require applications with specific questions (level of education, place of education, previous employment, criminal convictions, etc). The applicant then signs a statement that the information is correct. But if we require that, then Santos (or someone like Trump) could have told the truth on those questions and still have lied about contracting brain cancer, AIDS, and COVID; having a mother in the towers on 9/11; and all the other goofy claims that wouldn’t appear on an application. Are those lies serious enough to exclude the candidate.

Do Trump’s incessant lies about setting new attendance records in every venue he spoke in (because, according to him, he talked a fire chief into allowing extra people into a venue) count as disqualifying lies?
 
dann said:
Yes, he was elected! He was elected by lying to his constituents (to his party, too, but they were well aware what he was up to and approved), he managed to make them elect him. They gave him the power to make decisions on their behalf.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand this principle?! The voters gave him the right, and now he doesn't have to concern himself with their wishes or needs for the next couple of years and he is (more or less) free to sell his decision-making powers to the highest bidder. That's representative democracy!

His own conscience and "Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable," are all that matters. He just has to convince them, not people who voted for him, that he is doing the right thing, and we all know how easy it is to convince those entities ...
Click to expand...

You don’t think I understand? I understand full well.

You're saying that someone who runs as a graduate of Baruch University with a degree in economics, but who in reality is a high school drop-out should be able to get away with his fraud against the voters in his district.

If he had run as a high school dropout and elected, I have no issue.

How can he fairly represent the voters of his district when he can't fairly represent who he is?
 
George Santos appears to admit drag queen past in Wiki post

Embattled Rep. George Santos has claimed that reports and videos documenting him performing in drag are both “outrageous” and “categorically false.”

But nearly a dozen years ago, Santos himself appears to have confirmed that he participated in drag shows while he was a teenager living in Brazil.

A Wikipedia page accessed by POLITICO shows a user named Anthony Devolder — a Santos alias — writing that he “startted [sp] his ‘stage’ life at age 17 as an gay night club [sp] DRAG QUEEN and with that won sevral [sp] GAY ‘BEAUTY PAGENTS [sp].’”

The Wiki biography was last edited on April 29, 2011. It contains basic information that matches up with the newly sworn-in congressman, including Devolder being born on July 22, 1988, to a Brazilian family with a European background.
Click to expand...
 
Ladewig said:
On the contrary, scale is exactly what I am talking about. Almost all of us agree 60 lies is too much. But we still have to agree on a number that is the cutoff line for having too many lies. Is 30 an acceptable cutoff? 15? 7? Or as some here say is one proveably false statement enough to nix a candidate?

If we go with one, then does mean that H. Clinton is ineligible because of her claim that she came under fire at an airport?

……
And what if the provably false statement is based on misremembering something rather than intending to deceive people. If a senator says “10 years ago, I voted against senate bill S123,” but it turns out that person voted for the bill. Does that provably false statement count as a lie?

And how recent do these lies have to be? Does a 15-year-old lie count as part of a candidate’s lie tally?
……
As for comparing this job to other jobs with a fiduciary duty, other jobs require applications with specific questions (level of education, place of education, previous employment, criminal convictions, etc). The applicant then signs a statement that the information is correct. But if we require that, then Santos (or someone like Trump) could have told the truth on those questions and still have lied about contracting brain cancer, AIDS, and COVID; having a mother in the towers on 9/11; and all the other goofy claims that wouldn’t appear on an application. Are those lies serious enough to exclude the candidate.

Do Trump’s incessant lies about setting new attendance records in every venue he spoke in (because, according to him, he talked a fire chief into allowing extra people into a venue) count as disqualifying lies?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that George Santos mis-remembered attending the Horace Mann School, Baruch University and NYU? Are you saying he mis-remembered working for Citicorp and Goldman Sachs?

Which one of his falsehoods do you think are simply a case of misremembering?

We need to find a way to curb the rampant dishonesty in politics. We may not be able to eliminate it entirely, but a candidate should be accountable for telling the truth.
 
dudalb said:
Because it is an elected office. And except in severe circumstances, the will of the voters, however stupid, should be respected.
Click to expand...

And if the “will of the people” is to recall him?

We’ve only recently had a mechanism to recall MPs introduced in England and Wales, I think a political system that doesn’t have a recall procedure is lacking a safeguard.

Obviously the actual procedure has to have many caveats, checks and balances and so on, it shouldn’t be open for a politician to be recalled because their constituents (even if it is a majority) disagree with their voting record.

Have a read of MPs recall procedure in the UK for an example. Many other countries also have recall procedures.
 
dann said:
Why do you guys keep bringing other jobs into this. He didn't get the position of bank president, did he?

You completely misunderstand what I am writing if you think that it's a "defence" of anything. Do you actually think that representative democracy is a good thing? Honorable and dignified and worth defending? It's a system of government that makes people hand over decision-making to others who get to decide on their behalf rendering them more or less impotent. The representative gets to decide. They don't. He's the Decider! (In the case of Santos, it's on a pretty small scale.)

And the constituents now know the truth about George Santos, but they obviously don't know the truth about how representative democracy works. Neither do you, apparently.
Click to expand...
Oh no sir, I understand representative democracy. The people of this district wanted a competent businessman with a record of charitable support and a personal understanding of issues affecting the disadvantaged and different in society as well as the strength and courage to overcome personal and familial tragedy. That might even be a representative worth having, Republican or not. But that is not what they got. They got a fraud and a shape shifter but you think, because they were misled or fooled they have to suffer this "representative" for 2 years! To be fair this is one of the problems of FPTP systems like congress in the USA or Parliament in my own country, this idea of winner takes all but in a proper democracy there would be repercussions for this kind of behaviour since honour or good behaviour now counts for little in politics and governments.
 
Parsman said:
Oh no sir, I understand representative democracy. The people of this district wanted a competent businessman with a record of charitable support and a personal understanding of issues affecting the disadvantaged and different in society as well as the strength and courage to overcome personal and familial tragedy. That might even be a representative worth having, Republican or not. But that is not what they got. They got a fraud and a shape shifter but you think, because they were misled or fooled they have to suffer this "representative" for 2 years! To be fair this is one of the problems of FPTP systems like congress in the USA or Parliament in my own country, this idea of winner takes all but in a proper democracy there would be repercussions for this kind of behaviour since honour or good behaviour now counts for little in politics and governments.
Click to expand...


In Jorge's defense, he did record a verbal correction:
https://soundcloud.com/daleleopold/...d&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing
 
Ladewig said:
On the contrary, scale is exactly what I am talking about. Almost all of us agree 60 lies is too much. But we still have to agree on a number that is the cutoff line for having too many lies. Is 30 an acceptable cutoff? 15? 7? Or as some here say is one proveably false statement enough to nix a candidate?
Click to expand...
This is an arbitrary cherrypicked point. How about he's mentally ill? And yes, it should have applied to Trump as well but that's off-topic.

If we go with one, then does mean that H. Clinton is ineligible because of her claim that she came under fire at an airport?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

[snipped the rest of this nonsensical post]

You continue to ignore the facts of this case, the larger picture, the common sense difference.
 
I keep reading this thread title as "George Soros" and am expecting it to be about crazy ****. Certainly not disappointed.
 
Comedian Leslie Jones:

Do you know how much you have to lie to be known as 'the lying Congressman'?

She's got a point.

"He stole from a disabled, homeless veteran's dying service dog? Oh, my god, you evil and stupid!"

She's got another point.
 
George Santos is the current and future face of the Republican Party!
 
Elected office in a representative democracy is a very unique station, unlike just about any other job one can take. The qualifications are as basic as they come; citizenship, age, and an ability to convince enough people to vote for you. That's about it. No standards in education, experience, honesty. If the candidate finagles the position without committing a crime, then he's rightfully in.

The will of the voters is sacrosanct. Whether they are deceived or are in on it. Which is why I keep saying a People gets the Government it deserves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom