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

George Santos charged with defrauding campaign donors

Elise Stefanik

CNN has an article with gives a bit of insight into Santos' fundraising and relationship to a prominent NY representative. "“I would have never donated without Elise,” said Ken Salamone, who gave $5,800 to Santos’ campaign and more than $20,000 to his joint fundraising committee, after Stefanik’s team reached out on his behalf."
 
Chris_Halkides said:
CNN has an article with gives a bit of insight into Santos' fundraising and relationship to a prominent NY representative. "“I would have never donated without Elise,” said Ken Salamone, who gave $5,800 to Santos’ campaign and more than $20,000 to his joint fundraising committee, after Stefanik’s team reached out on his behalf."
Click to expand...


Is Elise his drag name?!
 
Lurch said:
When I say the elector's vote is sacrosanct, I mean this in the context of that vote having been cast by close of polls. Once so cast in good faith and counted fairly it is inviolate, determining utterly who is seated. No backsies. Caveat emptor, indeed.
Click to expand...
And yet all sorts of legislators are subject to recall elections. I noted there is no current recall mechanism for Santos. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be no matter how much rationalizing after the fact (as in after the Constitution was written) is being ranted in this thread.


Lurch said:
As dann points out, the absence of a Constitutional recall mechanism by the electorate is no oversight.
Click to expand...
It was an oversight. There's no evidence to the contrary and it's ludicrous to think it was by design. The way votes are divided up by states and Congressional districts what makes sense is that those divisions should have the recall options even if the country as a whole does not.
 
dann said:
Is Elise his drag name?!
Click to expand...
Is this a serious question?

Elise Stefanik is the Congressperson who manipulated her way into Liz Cheney's leadership position when Cheney went all honest and rational on the GOP's asses.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
... rationalizing after the fact (as in after the Constitution was written) is being ranted in this thread. ...
Click to expand...


Denmark's Grundlov, which I referred to in post 403, is from 1849, revised in 1953.
"The members of Folketinget are bound only by their convictions and not by any directions from their constituents."

Germany's Grundgesetz, which I referred to in post 423, is from May 23, 1949.
"According to the constitution, members of parliament are: Representatives of the people
They are the ones who make decisions.
So they are working according to their conscience.
They are bound by neither contracts nor directions.
They decide what they think is right."

They just can't stop making that same mistake over and over. It almost makes one think that it's a feature, not a bug ...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
.....
It was an oversight. There's no evidence to the contrary and it's ludicrous to think it was by design. The way votes are divided up by states and Congressional districts what makes sense is that those divisions should have the recall options even if the country as a whole does not.
Click to expand...

I dunno. How would a recall actually work? It might start with a petition for a new election. How many voters would have to sign a petition? Ten percent? 20 percent? The losing side would routinely seek a recall after every election. How many attempts have there been to recall California governors? The real issue is that for most of our history, ordinary standards of behavior would have compelled a Santos to resign in shame if he was caught in such blatant lies. But ordinary standards no longer apply.
 
I think people need to stop piling on to insult Santos and instead appreciate what a tremendous breakthrough in human achievement he offers: infinite energy. What we'll do is place him in a chamber and let him speak as much as he wants to. The constant flood of uncontrollable lies will keep his pants burning forever, and the heat can be used to power a steam turbine. As long as we don't run out of pants for him we'll have perpetual energy production.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It was an oversight. There's no evidence to the contrary and it's ludicrous to think it was by design.
Click to expand...

(Of course all of this with the caveat that nobody should ever give much of a crap what the original framers designed or thought.)

The framers were more aristocratic than democratic and the idea that congress or the executive should at all be accountable to the whims of the people would make them recoil in horror. Their constitution gave very little direct power to the voter for this reason. They thought the masses were morons who needed protected from their own stupidity.

Really, the continued deification of these jokers is like the perfect conservative jedi mind trick. They aren't our friends.

(Also at the framing the idea of a recall for the house would be mechanically unworkable. A two year turn is basically a scheduled recall election now, much less given the infrastructure back then.)
 
Georgie claimed in a Brazilian podcast that he was the victim of an assassination attempt, a mugging, and that his home in Florida was vandalized because he's a Republican. None of it has been confirmed by any evidence:
In the translated clip from Dec. 7, Santos claimed that the alleged vandalism occurred while he and his husband were at a New Year’s Eve Party to ring in 2021.

“It was vandalized because we were at a Republican Party in Florida in December 2020. So that’s it. I’ve experienced vandalism,” Santos claimed before shifting gears. “We have already suffered an attempt on my life, an assassination attempt, a threatening letter, having to have the police — a police escort standing in front of our house.”
Click to expand...

Santos did, however, more fully describe what he claimed happened on Fifth Avenue in the summer of 2021.

“I was mugged by two men. Before asking any questions, they weren’t Black, they were even white, but they robbed me, took my briefcase, took my shoes and my watch. And that was in broad daylight. It was 3 p.m. I was leaving my office, going to the garage, getting my car, and I was mugged,” he claimed, adding later: “The fear is real. It’s surreal what we live through here.”

The podcast hosts asked Santos for a police report to substantiate his claims, but haven’t heard back, Maddow said, adding that she did the same. She’s also filed a records request with the NYPD—but hasn’t yet received a response.
Click to expand...
 
dann said:
Denmark's Grundlov, which I referred to in post 403, is from 1849, revised in 1953.
"The members of Folketinget are bound only by their convictions and not by any directions from their constituents."

Germany's Grundgesetz, which I referred to in post 423, is from May 23, 1949.
"According to the constitution, members of parliament are: Representatives of the people
They are the ones who make decisions.
So they are working according to their conscience.
They are bound by neither contracts nor directions.
They decide what they think is right."

They just can't stop making that same mistake over and over. It almost makes one think that it's a feature, not a bug ...
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised Santos stood for election in Germany in 1949 and fooled them there. He's been in every election ever known, according to him.

/s
 
Bob001 said:
I dunno. How would a recall actually work? It might start with a petition for a new election. How many voters would have to sign a petition? Ten percent? 20 percent? The losing side would routinely seek a recall after every election. How many attempts have there been to recall California governors? The real issue is that for most of our history, ordinary standards of behavior would have compelled a Santos to resign in shame if he was caught in such blatant lies. But ordinary standards no longer apply.
Click to expand...


California has recalled our governor at least once and attempted it again just a few years ago. The bar is a bit too low we realized, a higher threshold of votes should be needed so it isn't abused like I believe it was here with Newsom via the Republican Party. They tried to recall him several times for various reasons until they got one to stick. It was a farce and it failed.

So there is a mechanism for it for Governor. Same could be applied to members of Congress. Why not? It is in our best interest to have that option, partly because it is 100% not it any single politicians best interest.

Santos, Boobert, Greene, Gaetz, almost Walker, Trump. The only one people are complaining about is Santos though, so the voters like what they see with the rest :rolleyes:

Then again, recall elections are being abused by the Republicans:

https://www.emilyslist.org/news/ent...cs-politics-gov-political-recall-election-sta
“After witnessing the most pro-felon, anti-jobs agenda in state history pushed by Senate Democrats, I believe all 11 current members of the Senate Democratic Caucus should be forced to stand for recall elections,” Michael Roberson, then the Republican leader in the Nevada Senate, wrote in an op-ed.
Click to expand...


So there's that. As I said, in California the Republicans tried many times to get a recall election against Newsom.
 
Given Santos' success as a US senate candidate, I'm going to stand next time. I'm not even a US citizen nor am I gay, but at least I'm not on the lam from criminal charges here in Australia. I can also do a reasonably good line in fabulism, plus I'm prepared to be fabulous. And I do wear daggy specs. Given the election process Santos has abused, I reckon I've got a great chance of success! ;)
 
Norman Alexander said:
Given Santos' success as a US senate candidate, I'm going to stand next time. I'm not even a US citizen nor am I gay, but at least I'm not on the lam from criminal charges here in Australia. I can also do a reasonably good line in fabulism, plus I'm prepared to be fabulous. And I do wear daggy specs. Given the election process Santos has abused, I reckon I've got a great chance of success! ;)
Click to expand...

WHole point is Santos did not know the diffrence between the House and the Senate..
 
Last edited:
Suddenly said:
(Of course all of this with the caveat that nobody should ever give much of a crap what the original framers designed or thought.)

The framers were more aristocratic than democratic and the idea that congress or the executive should at all be accountable to the whims of the people would make them recoil in horror. Their constitution gave very little direct power to the voter for this reason. They thought the masses were morons who needed protected from their own stupidity.

Really, the continued deification of these jokers is like the perfect conservative jedi mind trick. They aren't our friends.

(Also at the framing the idea of a recall for the house would be mechanically unworkable. A two year turn is basically a scheduled recall election now, much less given the infrastructure back then.)
Click to expand...

Seems to me that the results of recently electons prove the founders had a point there...


The founders should not be deified, but this total dumping on them is wrong.
 
dann said:
Denmark's Grundlov, which I referred to in post 403, is from 1849, revised in 1953.
"The members of Folketinget are bound only by their convictions and not by any directions from their constituents."

Germany's Grundgesetz, which I referred to in post 423, is from May 23, 1949.
"According to the constitution, members of parliament are: Representatives of the people
They are the ones who make decisions.
So they are working according to their conscience.
They are bound by neither contracts nor directions.
They decide what they think is right."

They just can't stop making that same mistake over and over. It almost makes one think that it's a feature, not a bug ...
Click to expand...

Repeating yourself and especially citing non-US Constitution sources is not changing anything. These are the two things you keep ignoring:

Representatives of the people does not preclude the people recalling their representative.

Other legislators are subject to recall which pretty much contradicts your one shot rationalization.
 
I think you are well aware why I cite non-US Constitution sources: You keep repeating your fantasy that the founding slave owners didn't intend the separation of power from the people, the separation that constitutions of representative democracies make so explicit so everybody is aware of them (but most of the time aren't because they prefer to imagine that it's something else): The elected rulers should be free from any interference by the people electing them. You like to imagine that they just couldn't predict a future when a lying drag artist would get elected. That goes totally against the grain of your idea of representative democracy whereas campaign contributions to candidates to make sure that they owe them once they're elected can be forgotten because ... well, that's just how it always happens. Business as usual.

The point of my non-US Constitution sources was to show you that the same alleged mistake keeps appearing, somehow, for whatever reason, to this very day, which almost makes one think that rulers don't want people to make governmental decisions. That principle remains sacrosanct because it's the one that allows the one percenters to buy the mature judgment and enlightened conscience of representatives.

What worries you isn't that George Santos got contributions from all sorts of wealthy donors, which he did. After all, that's what they all do, isn't it?! What worries you is that he lied to those guys. Big deal!
 
dudalb said:
Seems to me that the results of recently electons prove the founders had a point there...


The founders should not be deified, but this total dumping on them is wrong.
Click to expand...


Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the founding slave owners OK with people of allegedly inferior races and sexes not even being allowed to vote? And wasn't there a clause about even white men who had no property?

There's nothing wrong with "this total dumping on them." There's something wrong with not dumping on them because they have been deified.
 
Does the concept register that I simply disagree with you, Dann?

There's nothing magical about representative democracy that would preclude being able to recall said rep. There is no current mechanism unfortunately to recall Santos but maybe he'll suffer the consequences of using dark money to get elected.
 
Does the concept register that my disagreement with you is based on arguments?
Does the concept register with you that it seems to be damn important to all versions of representative democracy to protect the representatives from being influenced by their voters as soon as they are elected, i.e. that their influence stops when they've cast their votes?
Does it register with you that the same thing can't be said for the loophole that "allows the one percenters to buy the mature judgment and enlightened conscience of representatives"?

The money spent on that isn't even particularly dark, by the way. It usually doesn't have to be. That representatives get elected by means of campaign contributions from wealthy donors is institutionalized. And it's not as if the donors will still be willing to pay the candidates' next campaign if they don't deliver as elected representatives. It's in the nature of the whole thing. But PACs and Super PACs probably weren't something that the founding slave owners invented. I don't think they were able to predict those since they weren't magical. They are later additions to the US version of representative democracy.
 
dann said:
Does the concept register that my disagreement with you is based on arguments?
Does the concept register with you that it seems to be damn important to all versions of representative democracy apart from those representative democracies that have mechanisms to recall representatives to protect the representatives from being influenced by their voters as soon as they are elected, i.e. that their influence stops when they've cast their votes?


...snip....
Click to expand...

FTFY.
 
Dann, question for you to ponder: What happens in this mythical representative democracy if a candidate is elected who is then found, post-election, to have been ineligible to stand but has hidden that fact and for some reason (political expediency, let's say) it was not checked? For example, not being a citizen of the country they reside in, where citizenship is mandatory to be a candidate. Having been duly elected, is this non-citizen now unremoveable from office? And how might that be done if there is no legal method to recall an elected representative?
 
Last edited:
There's nothing mythical about representative democracy. And I think that you already know the answer to your question: What happens when somebody who is ineligible is elected? Then they aren't.
So tell me, Norman. Why is it so important in a representative democracy that the voters can't get rid of their elected representatives when they lie and break their campaign promises to them? Unless it's, for instance, presidential candidates who lie about their age or the country they were born in, questions that seem rather innocuous and which their voters probably wouldn't give a **** about.
I already know the answer. Edmund Burke told me!
 
Norman Alexander said:
Dann, question for you to ponder: What happens in this mythical representative democracy if a candidate is elected who is then found, post-election, to have been ineligible to stand but has hidden that fact and for some reason (political expediency, let's say) it was not checked? For example, not being a citizen of the country they reside in, where citizenship is mandatory to be a candidate. Having been duly elected, is this non-citizen now unremoveable from office? And how might that be done if there is no legal method to recall an elected representative?
Click to expand...

Begging the question: George Santos is not ineligible to stand. None of the truths behind his lies would have disqualified him from candidacy.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Begging the question: George Santos is not ineligible to stand. None of the truths behind his lies would have disqualified him from candidacy.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? It seems there is very little that he hasn't lied about - why not his citizenship? Don't forget you had a Kenyan citizen masquerading as your president for some time.





:p
 
Last edited:
dann said:
There's nothing mythical about representative democracy. And I think that you already know the answer to your question: What happens when somebody who is ineligible is elected? Then they aren't.
So tell me, Norman. Why is it so important in a representative democracy that the voters can't get rid of their elected representatives when they lie and break their campaign promises to them? Unless it's, for instance, presidential candidates who lie about their age or the country they were born in, questions that seem rather innocuous and which their voters probably wouldn't give a **** about.
I already know the answer. Edmund Burke told me!
Click to expand...
Lying is one of those things that can mean you'll face a recall as a representative in a representative democracy such as the UK.
 
In any sane world there wouldn't be "You can't lie the most obvious lying lies a liar ever lied" clause because the electorate simply wouldn't give that kind of candidate the time of day.

"An electorate that isn't 40% proudly wrong, stupid, and uncaring" is ALWAYS going to be the penultimate check and balance.
 
George Santos, financial wizard.
Over wine and caprese salad, Santos laid out a can’t-miss investment opportunity for Lopez to invest in bonds financing digital advertising. “He was saying if you give me $300,000, I am going to make you money. I’m going to make you $3 million,” said Lopez.

Lopez was among several people who in recent days described to The Post how Santos attempted to persuade them to invest with Harbor City. Santos worked as the company’s New York regional director for more than a year before the Securities and Exchange Commission filed suit in April 2021, alleging that the firm defrauded investors of millions of dollars in a “classic Ponzi scheme.”
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/01/25/george-santos-ponzi-scheme-harbor-city/
 
I don't get this part at all: "... to protect the representatives from being influenced by their voters as soon as they are elected. ...":confused:

And if protected from the influence of the voters that would leave said reps to be subject to bribes and other financial and/or powerful influences. It certainly appears that is a current problem in the US Congress. Seems to me said reps would better represent their constituents if they knew they could be recalled.
 
Morally, logically, and philosophically you are correct.

Practically it would turn into politicians staying in "campaign" mode constantly, even more so then they already do.

At a certain point politicians have to be able to stop politic-ing and just do their actual jobs.

Also politicians have to be able to make unpopular decisions some times.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Dann, question for you to ponder: What happens in this mythical representative democracy if a candidate is elected who is then found, post-election, to have been ineligible to stand but has hidden that fact and for some reason (political expediency, let's say) it was not checked? For example, not being a citizen of the country they reside in, where citizenship is mandatory to be a candidate. Having been duly elected, is this non-citizen now unremoveable from office? And how might that be done if there is no legal method to recall an elected representative?
Click to expand...

Meh. Obama got away with it for two terms. :jaw-dropp
 
I've been saying for a while now that "Okay what happens when an candidate who is uneligible for the office gets elected anyway" is a question we need to start thinking about because SOME version of it is going to happen sooner or later.
 
dann said:
There's nothing mythical about representative democracy. And I think that you already know the answer to your question: What happens when somebody who is ineligible is elected? Then they aren't. So tell me, Norman. Why is it so important in a representative democracy that the voters can't get rid of their elected representatives when they lie and break their campaign promises to them? Unless it's, for instance, presidential candidates who lie about their age or the country they were born in, questions that seem rather innocuous and which their voters probably wouldn't give a **** about.
I already know the answer. Edmund Burke told me!
Click to expand...

Avoiding the question. And the answer is: Yes they are elected. According to you. The voters have spoken, so in that person goes. Regardless of any flaws and factual evidence they qualify.

In fact, in the USA, dead people have been elected a few times. Now, I would have thought that being dead, a non-person if you will, disqualifies you from standing for and being elected to any government position. If you happen to be in an elected government position and die, you certainly cease to be in it any longer - it goes vacant. So it is passing strange that the very same condition that will automatically get you OUT of an elected position is no barrier to getting you IN to that same position. Not exactly logical nor sensible, don't you agree?

So now let's consider a situation closer to reality: A candidate in a lunatic asylum who is criminally insane. Let's check if they can stand for office in the USA: Citizen? Tick. Adult? Tick. ...and that's about it! Some feeble-minded fascist feces-flinger is considered "qualified" to stand for elected office. A good idea, in your view, that nobody gets told? Want them in your parliament? Perhaps if their true "situation" was known about beforehand then their prospects of success might change...?

By the way, the Burke quote is about AFTER they are elected, not before. It's not the subject of my argument.
 
Our political standards are not a suicide pact. The citizenry of a country are not obligated to let dishonest agents "well technically..." the country down the drain.

If your argument is "There should be no non-elective (non-electoral? Whatever, you know what I mean) qualifications for office" just say so.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Our political standards are not a suicide pact. The citizenry of a country are not obligated to let dishonest agents "well technically..." the country down the drain.

If your argument is "There should be no no-elective (electoral? Whatever, you know what I mean) qualifications for office" just say so.
Click to expand...
Just checking: Are you responding to me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom