I think you misunderstand. You are talking about AFTER they are elected, in which case you have always had a fair point. We are talking about BEFORE they are elected.That's what I've been saying the whole time:
Santos is whining that it "wasn't very Mormon" of Romney to tell him he doesn't belong in Congress. How "Christian" is it to lie to the voters about almost everything about your life?
I think you misunderstand. You are talking about AFTER they are elected, in which case you have always had a fair point. We are talking about BEFORE they are elected.
...after they are elected.Before and after. I was talking about the lies Santos and everybody else tell to get elected. Besides, the looney programs were always a way of deflecting the focus from what they actually intend to do, tax cuts for the 1 percenters, to the squirrel themes: war on Xmas, drag queen story hour, pronouns, gendered M&Ms, Potato Head, wokeness, cancel culture, stop the steal, deep state, windmills, Bengasi, border wall, pedophile rings, the banning of beef and gas-stoves.
Not misdirection but misplaced expectations. Dumb voters mistake a single-policy candidate as their ONLY policy. No candidate is really going to be a one-pet-subject representative and just ignore everything else that passes through the government on their watch. They may be a Dem against the don't-say-gay, but they could also be a fiscal conservative, or a Trotskyite communist for other social programs. What, did you expect Mr don't-say-gay to be fiscally liberal and surprise they are not? Did s/he tell you they were what you expected?One thing is what their corporate supporters pay them to do. Quite another thing is the insane slogans. The themes are misdirection. It's what representative democracy all about. Screw the working classes while pretending that you are on their side.
I suspect those donations, if they still happen now, are strategic, not personal. In Australia, some big businesses contribute equally to our major conservative and progressive parties, so as to get support to the one they want but without looking like they are biased against the other. Mind you, Australian business contributions to political parties are nowhere near in the same scope that happens in the USA.Ron DeSantis gets campaign contributions from Disney! The don't give a **** about Don't say gay! and that stuff as long as they can be seen as the victims of DeSantis. What they fear is that they might have to pay taxes.
Not quite sure what you are arguing for here.Otherwise, they all win: DeSantis gets to prove to his voters that he is tough on LGBTQ. Liberals will see 'progressive' Disney as a victim of censorship and start wearing 'I'm Disney' badges.
...after they are elected.
Not misdirection but misplaced expectations. Dumb voters mistake a single-policy candidate as their ONLY policy. No candidate is really going to be a one-pet-subject representative and just ignore everything else that passes through the government on their watch. They may be a Dem against the don't-say-gay, but they could also be a fiscal conservative, or a Trotskyite communist for other social programs. What, did you expect Mr don't-say-gay to be fiscally liberal and surprise they are not? Did s/he tell you they were what you expected?
I suspect those donations, if they still happen now, are strategic, not personal. In Australia, some big businesses contribute equally to our major conservative and progressive parties, so as to get support to the one they want but without looking like they are biased against the other. Mind you, Australian business contributions to political parties are nowhere near in the same scope that happens in the USA.
Not quite sure what you are arguing for here.Want to rephrase?
Romney called him a sick puppy. If Santos isn't careful, he may find himself tied down onto the roof of Romney's car.Santos is whining that it "wasn't very Mormon" of Romney to tell him he doesn't belong in Congress. How "Christian" is it to lie to the voters about almost everything about your life?
Romney called him a sick puppy. If Santos isn't careful, he may find himself tied down onto the roof of Romney's car.
Tiffany Bogosian, a New York attorney who attended junior high with Santos, told the outlet she helped him deal with the charge after they had reconnected. Bogosian confirmed details in a call with Insider.
Santos made out $15,125 in checks to dog breeders in an Amish area of the state, Politico reported. Days later, a pet store in Staten Island, Pet Oasis, held an adoption event in conjunction with Friends of Pets United, a pet charity Santos has claimed to have founded, according to Politico and the store's Instagram page.
In 2020, Santos asked Bogosian for help addressing the theft charges, telling her that his checkbook had been stolen so he had called the bank to cancel the checkbook before they had been cashed, causing the checks to bounce.
The November 2017 checks, which were obtained by Politico, have the name "George A Santos" on them, but no address or contact information. The memo lines say "puppies" or "puppy," and the signatures on each check all appear different.
Bogosian told Insider she did not think Santos was the most trustworthy person, due to what he was like when they were younger.
"He would always lie, about stupid things," she said. Still, she decided to help him because of their past and because the story had piqued her interest. Now she no longer believes his story that the checkbook had been stolen.
The theft by deception charge was ultimately dropped and was expunged from Santos's record in 2021, a representative for the York County District Court confirmed to Politico. A reason for the charge being expunged was not given.
Romney called him a sick puppy. If Santos isn't careful, he may find himself tied down onto the roof of Romney's car.
Romney is one of the few Republicans who have stood solidly agianst Trump. Not so sure dragging out the dog incident which i am conviced was something really stupid Romney did when yound rather an deliberate cruelty....serves much use here.
In 2017, Santos was charged with theft for writing bad checks to dog breeders in PA. Charges were dropped after he said his checkbook was stolen.
Yeaaaaaaaaah.....his checkbook was 'stollen'. Uh-huh.
In 2017, Santos was charged with theft for writing bad checks to dog breeders in PA. Charges were dropped after he said his checkbook was stolen.
Yeaaaaaaaaah.....his checkbook was 'stollen'. Uh-huh.
Great. Can't say I'm fond of the Amish Puppy Mills.
The article in question mentions that the signatures on each of the checks is different. Which might mean either he is telling the truth about his checkbook being stolen, he had an accomplice or 2 in whatever scheme he was involved in, or he was smart enough to disguise his signatures.This is perplexing. Couldn't the breeders have looked at a picture of Santos and said "Yeah, this is (or isn't) the guy who bought our dogs." And did Santos show up at the pet adoption event with dogs like the ones the breeders sold? It sounds like the DA didn't make this a high priority.In 2017, Santos was charged with theft for writing bad checks to dog breeders in PA. Charges were dropped after he said his checkbook was stolen.
Yeaaaaaaaaah.....his checkbook was 'stollen'. Uh-huh.
The article in question mentions that the signatures on each of the checks is different. Which might mean either he is telling the truth about his checkbook being stolen, he had an accomplice or 2 in whatever scheme he was involved in, or he was smart enough to disguise his signatures.
TIL.Great. Can't say I'm fond of the Amish Puppy Mills.
Great. Can't say I'm fond of the Amish Puppy Mills.
TIL.
Santos claims he is getting support of Senator Sinema, Sinema's office said she never spoke to him. Another day for Santos, another Lie.
The House's continued ebrace of him show the current GOP has no morals or ethics except power.
In this case, I'm not so sure that it's Santos is lying. Sinema has taken up the mantle that Gabbard laid down and is a prolific liar herself.
Yeah, it’s not all cuteness and horse-drawn buggies with the Amish.
There is a lot to unpack as to how US culture sanctifies the Amish and similar sects. It's like we've developed the societal perception that familial abuse was invented in the 1960s so going back to "simpler" times means it didn't happen.
Not just seriously but almost completely literally. By the book, and nothing else.For me, I tend to see groups like the Amish, old order Mennonite and Hutterites as deeply rooted in Christianity; people who take the Bible their faith seriously. So it comes as a surprise when I see them acting like every other group of human beings and ignoring the tenets of their faith.