George Santos charged with defrauding campaign donors

[dann]

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?

You don't seem to understand the difference between "any job" and the 'job' of being an elected representative.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Apparently there's video now

What am I, chopped liver?

It's only a couple of posts up that I posted this.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

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.

 

[I Am The Scum]

What am I, chopped liver?

It's only a couple of posts up that I posted this.

George Santos gave me his word that no one else had posted it.

 

[Ladewig]

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?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

George Santos gave me his word that no one else had posted it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?

You seem to be missing the issue of scale here in your effort to basque in the glow of false equivalences.

 

[acbytesla]

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?

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.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by dann View Post
Do you expect him to resign just because you say so?

What kind of silly question is that?

What kind of silly question is that?

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.

Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.

 

[SteveAitch]

You seem to be missing the issue of scale here in your effort to basque in the glow of false equivalences.

What Ladewig wears while posting is none of our business. Probably.

 

[dann]

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.

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.

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 ...

 

[Parsman]

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 ...

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.

 

[dann]

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?

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.

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.

 

[Darat]

I do think a good "democratic" governance system will have a mechanism for their constituents to recall them.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

I do think a good "democratic" governance system will have a mechanism for their constituents to recall them.

I agree with both of you.

 

[Norman Alexander]

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.

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.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What Ladewig wears while posting is none of our business. Probably.

I am on occasion vocabulary-challenged.

 

[dann]

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.

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.

 

[Norman Alexander]

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.

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.

 

[dann]

I do think a good "democratic" governance system will have a mechanism for their constituents to recall them.

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)

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.