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

George Santos charged with defrauding campaign donors

smartcooky said:
So if I understand you correctly, you find it perfectly acceptable for a person to lie on their CV/resume, in order to get the job they are applying for?
Click to expand...

No, I do not think it is acceptable. But it isn't the role of the representative of the district I live in to evaluate the resume...the voters already did that in New York.

There is a lot of things on the resume of politicians I think are unacceptable that essentially amount to being a Republican. But I'm not going to call on the local elected officials to try and expel all elected Republicans, either.
 
BobTheCoward said:
No, I do not think it is acceptable. But it isn't the role of the representative of the district I live in to evaluate the resume...the voters already did that in New York.

There is a lot of things on the resume of politicians I think are unacceptable that essentially amount to being a Republican. But I'm not going to call on the local elected officials to try and expel all elected Republicans, either.
Click to expand...

I have difficulty understanding what you're saying here. You seem to be implying that if you don't like the truth anyway, the lie doesn't matter.

You say the voters evaluated the resume, but if the resume was fake that's the one thing they could not do. I think even Republican voters who vote for a person I would never support are entitled to have at least a reasonable idea of who or what they're voting for.

I mean, I'd never vote for Liz Cheney, but I'm sure there are some who did who would be legitimately offended if she turned out to be a secret insurrectionist.

Maybe I'm misreading what you meant. It seems odd.
 
bruto said:
You say the voters evaluated the resume, but if the resume was fake that's the one thing they could not do. I think even Republican voters who vote for a person I would never support are entitled to have at least a reasonable idea of who or what they're voting for.

I mean, I'd never vote for Liz Cheney, but I'm sure there are some who did who would be legitimately offended if she turned out to be a secret insurrectionist.

Maybe I'm misreading what you meant. It seems odd.
Click to expand...

The Democrats pointed out he was a liar before the election. If you elect someone with poor character, you will find out that they did more things of poor character over time. But I am glad his constituents know more and can act accordingly.

There are cases where if it was truly novel information that would be something I would support kicking them out for....like how much Jimmy Seville caught people off guard.

But there is no surprise in Santos being a liar
 
Two men are applying for the position of Chief Surgeon of a major metropolitan hospital. One has every required degree and years of experience, the other has never missed an episode of General Hospital. However, their applications say they are both top flight doctors. One of them is clearly a bad choice, but there's no way of knowing which of them even may be lying, since the only thing the HR department can go by is the written applications and the personal interviews. Who to choose?
By the way, one of them is operating on you in the morning.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
The Democrats pointed out he was a liar before the election. If you elect someone with poor character, you will find out that they did more things of poor character over time. But I am glad his constituents know more and can act accordingly.

There are cases where if it was truly novel information that would be something I would support kicking them out for....like how much Jimmy Seville caught people off guard.

But there is no surprise in Santos being a liar
Click to expand...

I get that part but I do really think there is a material difference here between someone who lies, as many politicians do, and someone whose lies are not only so extensive but so gratuitous that it's questionable not only whether he's competent to accomplish what he claims to stand for, but whether he actually stands for anything he says he does.

I suppose for some it's a matter of degree. They voted for the "leopards will eat your face off" party, after all, and they deserve a leopard, but even so they did not vote for a rhinoceros.
 
bruto said:
I get that part but I do really think there is a material difference here between someone who lies, as many politicians do, and someone whose lies are not only so extensive but so gratuitous that it's questionable not only whether he's competent to accomplish what he claims to stand for, but whether he actually stands for anything he says he does.

I suppose for some it's a matter of degree. They voted for the "leopards will eat your face off" party, after all, and they deserve a leopard, but even so they did not vote for a rhinoceros.
Click to expand...

I thought we knew before the election that he was such a gratuitous liar he wasn't qualified for the job. If that was actually new information after the election, I would have a different view.
 
BobTheCoward said:
No, I do not think it is acceptable. But it isn't the role of the representative of the district I live in to evaluate the resume...the voters already did that in New York.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point... the applicant lied on his resume, so the voters had no opportunity to evaluate the applicant's true record, and many of the lies he told were not revealed until AFTER the voters had cast their votes.

A candidate making false claims on the hustings about their qualifications, experience and work history ought to be disqualifying.
 
smartcooky said:
I think you are missing the point... the applicant lied on his resume, so the voters had no opportunity to evaluate the applicant's true record, and many of the lies he told were not revealed until AFTER the voters had cast their votes.

A candidate making false claims on the hustings about their qualifications, experience and work history ought to be disqualifying.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand my point. Liars liE and he is a known liar. Just as you will hear more stories about a charitable person being charitable in their past, you Are going to uncover more lies from a liar. The specific lies are not news or any more information on their character.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I thought we knew before the election that he was such a gratuitous liar he wasn't qualified for the job. If that was actually new information after the election, I would have a different view.
Click to expand...
I understand, and agree that for all sorts of reasons I would consider him unqualified for the job, but I think that there were others who considered him qualified for much the same reason, and that the dimension and depth of his lying made a difference. There is, I think, a difference between voting for the wrong person and voting for a person who in essence does not even exist. I realize that in this I'm kind of acting as devil's advocate, in the sense that I'm sympathizing with people whose votes I think were wrong anyway, but I think it's even possible to fool a fool.
 
Mike! said:
Two men are applying for the position of Chief Surgeon of a major metropolitan hospital. One has every required degree and years of experience, the other has never missed an episode of General Hospital. However, their applications say they are both top flight doctors. One of them is clearly a bad choice, but there's no way of knowing which of them even may be lying, since the only thing the HR department can go by is the written applications and the personal interviews. Who to choose?
By the way, one of them is operating on you in the morning.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's a good analogy. Even if for some reason they couldn't perform a background investigation, a competent interviewer would ask detailed questions about how they would perform specific procedures, who were their instructors at the med school they claim to have attended, etc., etc. In this case the voters essentially had to rely on the resume without an interview or background check.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I thought we knew before the election that he was such a gratuitous liar he wasn't qualified for the job. If that was actually new information after the election, I would have a different view.
Click to expand...

What makes you think so? The information about Santos' lies came out after the election. Apparently a small paper raised questions beforehand, but they never gained traction, apparently in part because it was considered a safe seat for the Democrats.
 
Bob001 said:
What makes you think so? The information about Santos' lies came out after the election. Apparently a small paper raised questions beforehand, but they never gained traction, apparently in part because it was considered a safe seat for the Democrats.
Click to expand...

I regard the paper as sufficient
 
How much reportage did Fox News give of his lies BEFORE the election? And how much now? Remember who you are dealing with here - low-information cultists.

Also, if these people want government run like a business, what's the standard response to a business finding out a new start has comprehensively lied on their resume in order to get the senior position they offered? I can tell you - they are fired on the spot and escorted off the premises, and that's just the start.
 
Mike! said:
Two men are applying for the position of Chief Surgeon of a major metropolitan hospital. One has every required degree and years of experience, the other has never missed an episode of General Hospital. However, their applications say they are both top flight doctors. One of them is clearly a bad choice, but there's no way of knowing which of them even may be lying, since the only thing the HR department can go by is the written applications and the personal interviews. Who to choose?
By the way, one of them is operating on you in the morning.
Click to expand...


"I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV" is enough for many people. In fact that was the first line my Critical Thinking teacher said to the class on day one. "Any one remember the following commercial?......"

Republican politicians don't need facts. Many of their voters don't either. I mean they're nice to have around but not really necessary.

Let's see what happens to this guy. Actions over words.
 
mgidm86 said:
"I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV" is enough for many people. In fact that was the first line my Critical Thinking teacher said to the class on day one. "Any one remember the following commercial?......"

Republican politicians don't need facts. Many of their voters don't either. I mean they're nice to have around but not really necessary.

Let's see what happens to this guy. Actions over words.
Click to expand...
This actually successful for MAGA voters. Because it's Trump's line: "I'm a successful businessman because I played one on TV!" And they fell for it. :rolleyes:
 
mgidm86 said:
"I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV" is enough for many people. In fact that was the first line my Critical Thinking teacher said to the class on day one. "Any one remember the following commercial?......"

Republican politicians don't need facts. Many of their voters don't either. I mean they're nice to have around but not really necessary.

Let's see what happens to this guy. Actions over words.
Click to expand...

I remember that commercial. There's a reason why commercials put actors in white coats and, often, a stethoscope around their neck: people are stupid.
 
This looks interesting:

Brazilian authorities intend to revive fraud case against George Santos

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/02/politics/george-santos-brazil-fraud-case/index.html

The criminal case, according to the Times, citing court records it has reviewed, stems from a visit Santos made to a small clothing store in Niterói, a city outside of Rio de Janeiro, where Santos spent nearly $700 out of the stolen checkbook using a fake name.

CNN previously confirmed reporting from the Times last month that Santos was charged with embezzlement in a Brazilian court in 2011, according to case records from the Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice. However, court records from 2013 state that the charge was archived after court summons went unanswered and they were unable to locate Santos.
Click to expand...


“I am not a criminal here – not here or in Brazil or any jurisdiction in the world. Absolutely not. That didn’t happen.”
Click to expand...

Translation: "I am a criminal in every jurisdiction on the planet"

He claims he's innocent so it's a damn good bet he is guilty. I laughed out loud when I read the charge.

This is getting good! Damn the Repubs know how to pick 'em!
 
Last edited:
Trump is the best example of someone who used lies to get elected, and even when the lies were exposed didn't lose followers.
Ultimately, it matters more what a representative does when in office than what they did to get into office.
Of course, Bayesian reasoning suggests that if they used deception in the past, they will use it going forward.
 
Nightline covered Santos and filmed him sitting alone on his first day in the House and described him as "an outcast".

One conservative in his district said he should just get out of town and questioned who would work with him, believe him, or trust him. Another went for the 'If everybody who lied in politics took accountability, we wouldn't have anybody around". I wonder if this genius :rolleyes: has ever considered that the reason they continue to lie so blatantly and never take accountability is because of that very attitude she just expressed?

Last September, a local paper, The Northshore Leader, exposed many of Santos' lies, including his rocket rise from $55K a year to $11 million with no plausible explanation.
Santos' Dem opponent in the race, Robert Zimmerman, tried to bring attention to the paper's article but "couldn't get any traction" for the story.

In one campaign ad, Santos said, "I've seen how socialism destroys people's lives because my grandparents survived the Holocaust."

Does this idiot think the Nazis were socialists?
 
Stacyhs said:
Nightline covered Santos and filmed him sitting alone on his first day in the House and described him as "an outcast".

One conservative in his district said he should just get out of town and questioned who would work with him, believe him, or trust him. Another went for the 'If everybody who lied in politics took accountability, we wouldn't have anybody around". I wonder if this genius :rolleyes: has ever considered that the reason they continue to lie so blatantly and never take accountability is because of that very attitude she just expressed?

Last September, a local paper, The Northshore Leader, exposed many of Santos' lies, including his rocket rise from $55K a year to $11 million with no plausible explanation.
Santos' Dem opponent in the race, Robert Zimmerman, tried to bring attention to the paper's article but "couldn't get any traction" for the story.

In one campaign ad, Santos said, "I've seen how socialism destroys people's lives because my grandparents survived the Holocaust."

Does this idiot think the Nazis were socialists?
Click to expand...

Probably. But even if he doesn't he'd know his constituency is stupid enough to think so.
 
Stacyhs said:
"

Does this idiot think the Nazis were socialists?
Click to expand...

Well, isn't it in the official Nazi name, the national socialist workers' party? North Korea is also a democratic republic too. Oh, and the Freedom Caucus fights for freedom and rights of all Americans too.
 
I actually really like him. His mom really was a housekeeper and how many members of congress can say that. Val Demings mainly ran on growing up poor and got no points for that. I donated to her early on but she laid the poor thing on pretty thick. She should have ran on the issues. There were a lot of issues considering who she was running against. About Santos, it is pretty sad that you have to make lies like that to get elected. And they were really good fun lies! I think if given half the chance he could be really fun to watch.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Does this idiot think the Nazis were socialists?
Click to expand...

There are lots of people on the right, idiocy unexamined, who like to present Nazi Germany an example of what happens when socialists get their way. I hear it quite a lot on mixed forums.

Some stuff like this I don't know how sincerely it's believed, as much as it's a flag to wave to recognize each other. It's actually odd to pin down. I mean, they'll say they believe something and not be lying, but have a conspicuous lack of interest in examining how true it is. The best you can say is that they believe it but don't really care if they're wrong.
 
Last edited:
thaiboxerken said:
Well, isn't it in the official Nazi name, the national socialist workers' party? North Korea is also a democratic republic too. Oh, and the Freedom Caucus fights for freedom and rights of all Americans too.
Click to expand...

The more a country uses the terms "People's", "Socialist", or "Democratic", the less they actually are any of those. The same thing with "Freedom" and "Patriot (or form thereof) with groups.
 
He now admits to stealing a checkbook from his Mom's purse, a checkbook that was not hers, and writing fraudulent checks signing the other guy's name. Brazil is going after him.

So another lie (like anyone believed him)...."I am not a criminal in any jurisdiction in the world". Dude...!

I have long joked about running for office in my Dad's red district as a Republican, but only for the cool pension plan. Maybe that isn't too far-fetched these days. I'd have to lie a lot and say stupid stuff constantly but that might be fun.

The Santos guy is truly pathetic. I hope something is done about him besides not sitting next to him in chambers. I hope he is extradited or otherwise forced to go to Brazil and jailed LOL.

On a positive note (or maybe this is positive, long term) this is another very bad sign for Republicans, especially if they let this slide. What an embarrassing group of people. Republicans are so separated from reality it's almost comical. Tragically comical. Comically tragical.

He's 34. The theft occurred in 2008 when he was 20. He obviously has not changed.
 
Santos just can't seem to help himself. He truly is pathological about lying:

A now-deleted press release on his official House website claimed that Mr Santos was “sworn in as a member of the House of Representatives by the speaker of the House on January 3, 2023,” even though there was no speaker of the House at all.
Click to expand...
A second item in the “press releases” section contains a class picture of new members joining the 118th Congress, and still erroneously refers to them being sworn in on Tuesday.

“The newest Members of Congress are sworn in on January 3rd, 2023,” reads the photo caption on Mr Santos’s site.
Click to expand...
(Newsweek)
None of the new members has been sworn in.
 
mgidm86 said:
He now admits to stealing a checkbook from his Mom's purse, a checkbook that was not hers, and writing fraudulent checks signing the other guy's name. Brazil is going after him.

So another lie (like anyone believed him)...."I am not a criminal in any jurisdiction in the world". Dude...!

I have long joked about running for office in my Dad's red district as a Republican, but only for the cool pension plan. Maybe that isn't too far-fetched these days. I'd have to lie a lot and say stupid stuff constantly but that might be fun.

The Santos guy is truly pathetic. I hope something is done about him besides not sitting next to him in chambers. I hope he is extradited or otherwise forced to go to Brazil and jailed LOL.

On a positive note (or maybe this is positive, long term) this is another very bad sign for Republicans, especially if they let this slide. What an embarrassing group of people. Republicans are so separated from reality it's almost comical. Tragically comical. Comically tragical.

He's 34. The theft occurred in 2008 when he was 20. He obviously has not changed.
Click to expand...

He is referred to here as a fantasist lying criminal and fugitive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom