New GOP Congressman's entire resume is faked

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,417]

good expose on how Elise Stefanik is a big reason that Santos was elected with little understanding of his background.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/23/politics/elise-stefanik-george-santos-donors/index.html

Once again, the GOP points out that their main value is winning so Stefanik doesn't see a problem here.

[Old Freak Nasty 818]

I think Stefanik is low-key one of the most dangerous MAGA mutations in the country so anything that paints her in a bad light is good.  She's intelligent, ambitious, and has shown the ability to understand how to adapt to her her audience.  That is, she has no moral or political compass other than the accumulation of power.

She's a potential MAGA standard bearer in the future and she's far more competent and more dangerous than all the Trump wannabes who mostly only want to grift.

[atomheartbevo 89,465]

5 hours ago, Old Freak Nasty said:

I think Stefanik is low-key one of the most dangerous MAGA mutations in the country so anything that paints her in a bad light is good.  She's intelligent, ambitious, and has shown the ability to understand how to adapt to her her audience.  That is, she has no moral or political compass other than the accumulation of power.

She's a potential MAGA standard bearer in the future and she's far more competent and more dangerous than all the Trump wannabes who mostly only want to grift.

Agreed 100%. She adapts extremely well to whatever the situation/audience calls for.

[atomheartbevo 89,465]

Photos and videos from over 3 years (possibly more) of him doing the full-on drag thing are coming out, and not a one off of him having a bit of fun.

 

[atomheartbevo 89,465]

He should be owning this shit.  The dude was fully committed to it, and plenty of people would support that.  Just not the political party he picked.

 

[TheStoicPaisano 9,904]

Diversity Double Whammy wasn’t good enough?

[YGIFS 19,449]

13 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

He should be owning this shit.  The dude was fully committed to it, and plenty of people would support that.  Just not the political party he picked.

 

He's just following the GOP playbook though.  He's deflecting from the fact that his base doesn't pick up on the fact that people asking him these questions don't care about him being gay or doing drag shows.  They are asking why he's lying, why he's in cahoots with a party that hates people like him, and why he's not coming clean on his real background as most Congresspeople do?  But he makes it out to be a personal attack to appease the people that would actually personally attack him.  And it will work...for awhile.  Until he becomes a fundraising liability for the party...and then he's done.  But he can still work Sao Paolo dinner theater.  

[jimmyjazz 45,580]

The guy was elected as an out, gay man.  It's insane to think that his base would care more about him dressing in drag than it would care about him doing the nasty with other men.  The whole thing makes no sense, unless "drag" just pulls the concept a little to far into the real from the abstract for these idgits.

[YGIFS 19,449]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

The guy was elected as an out, gay man.  It's insane to think that his base would care more about him dressing in drag than it would care about him doing the nasty with other men.  The whole thing makes no sense, unless "drag" just pulls the concept a little to far into the real from the abstract for these idgits.

He seems to think it's a tipping point.  Because all we hear anymore is that drag shows are grooming camps for pre-K field trips.  I think they're coming around on 40 year old gay man and realize it's not a big deal anymore...but drag shows?  Bridge too far.  Why else would that be where Santos draw the line in the sand>  Unless it's revealing in and of itself of a citizenship or finance question.  

 

[Old Freak Nasty 818]

Gay men and lesbian woman are normalized now, even to the GQP.  Mostly because nearly everyone knows someone they respect, whether family, friend, colleague who are out of the closet.  Even Fox News can't vilify "normal" gay people anymore.

But the same cannot be said yet for the trans community and drag queens are viewed by FNC viewership as part of that group.

Being a gay man is not hard in Santos' party but Kitara Ravache is not welcome there.

[DixonHur 11,236]

4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

The guy was elected as an out, gay man.  It's insane to think that his base would care more about him dressing in drag than it would care about him doing the nasty with other men.  The whole thing makes no sense, unless "drag" just pulls the concept a little to far into the real from the abstract for these idgits.

So long as he doesn't read a book to children

[Satchel 6,908]

The latest revelation has him regaling Brazilian pod cast hosts with an improbable story of him being robbed at gunpoint at 3p in broad daylight during which the robber took his wallet, watch and shoes. Yes. Shoes.

[Sawbonz 27,445]

These?

[TheStoicPaisano 9,904]

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,851]

fuck, had to look that one up

bun·ny boil·er
nounDEROGATORY•INFORMAL
a woman who acts vengefully after having been spurned by her lover.

[DixonHur 11,236]

bunny boiler?

[Red Five 40,689]

Glenn Close.

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

fuck, had to look that one up

bun·ny boil·er
nounDEROGATORY•INFORMAL
a woman who acts vengefully after having been spurned by her lover.

Wait what…you never saw Fatal Attraction?

[StassneyHorn 6,540]

Who Framed Roger Rabbit reference just dangling out here waiting to be used

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,851]

5 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Wait what…you never saw Fatal Attraction?

not since I was a kid. I was 9 when that movie came out. haven't had the urge to see it again

[Js1 85,142]

I’ve never seen it and I know that reference 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,851]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I’ve never seen it and I know that reference 

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

19 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

fuck, had to look that one up

bun·ny boil·er
nounDEROGATORY•INFORMAL
a woman who acts vengefully after having been spurned by her lover.

[Red Five 40,689]

"Boiling a bunny" was code for crazy bitch for a long time. 

[YGIFS 19,449]

4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

"Boiling a bunny" was code for crazy bitch for a long time. 

To be fair, there was a lot of coke going around as well when that was a thing.

[SydneyCarton 47,929]

23 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

not since I was a kid. I was 9 when that movie came out. haven't had the urge to see it again

1.) Who the fuck let you watch Fatal Attraction when you were 9 years old
2.) If the answer is "no one" then why the fuck did you want to watch Fatal Attraction when you were 9 years old?

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

1.) Who the fuck let you watch Fatal Attraction when you were 9 years old
2.) If the answer is "no one" then why the fuck did you want to watch Fatal Attraction when you were 9 years old?

He was attracted to it. Just not fatally.

[YGIFS 19,449]

14 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

1.) Who the fuck let you watch Fatal Attraction when you were 9 years old
2.) If the answer is "no one" then why the fuck did you want to watch Fatal Attraction when you were 9 years old?

I saw it when I was 11 at the theater.  Is that anything?  One of only a handful of activities my father and I enjoyed were film noir, baseball, and fishing.  We talked about books a little bit but mostly went to the movies.  

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,851]

18 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

1.) Who the fuck let you watch Fatal Attraction when you were 9 years old
2.) If the answer is "no one" then why the fuck did you want to watch Fatal Attraction when you were 9 years old?

I didn't say I saw it when I was 9; I was probably 12 or so, which isn't much better. My neighbor had HBO and me and his kid would watch shit we weren't supposed to all the time

[SydneyCarton 47,929]

18 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

I saw it when I was 11 at the theater.  Is that anything?  One of only a handful of activities my father and I enjoyed were film noir, baseball, and fishing.  We talked about books a little bit but mostly went to the movies.  

Well, that might explain a lot. What did the two of you think of 9 and 1/2 weeks? Did you watch it at a regular theater or a jerk off theater? 

 

[YGIFS 19,449]

if you think about it, Fatal Attraction really only had 'racy' scene.  The rest of it was just a realistic horror movie about infidelity.  Ironically, about the time my parent's divorce was finalized.  But yeah, every 80's R-movie had either a sex scene or a coke scene, just part of the trade I suppose.  Mainly we watched horror movies and demented comedies.  Which also explains a lot.  

[Macanudo 12,932]

Fatal Attraction and worry about catching a STD have kept me from straying my whole life.   But way more Fatal Attraction than the other.

[TexasHooch 5,117]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

1.) Who the fuck let you watch Fatal Attraction when you were 9 years old
2.) If the answer is "no one" then why the fuck did you want to watch Fatal Attraction when you were 9 years old?

Pfft. Allow me to tell you the story about a little 8 year old Hooch who snuck out of his room late one night and decided that some movie on HBO called Deliverance looked cool:

Not cool.  Not cool at all.

[jimmyjazz 45,580]

Shit, I read my mom's copy of "The Exorcist" when I was probably 10.  That caused years of trauma.

[TheStoicPaisano 9,904]

Book - Pet Cemetery

Movie that fucked w/ me head - T2

Movie w/ boobs: Shirley Valentine

[SydneyCarton 47,929]

40 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

if you think about it, Fatal Attraction really only had 'racy' scene.  The rest of it was just a realistic horror movie about infidelity.  Ironically, about the time my parent's divorce was finalized.  But yeah, every 80's R-movie had either a sex scene or a coke scene, just part of the trade I suppose.  Mainly we watched horror movies and demented comedies.  Which also explains a lot.  

It is completely obvious to everyone on this thread that you went out of the way not to answer the question about 9 and 1/2 weeks. Which is fine, we don't really care about the answer. Because now we all have the answer. 

[YGIFS 19,449]

Yes very obvious.  I actually didn’t know about that movie I think until college.  I think it was after meeting jay mcinerney in college  that I went back and watched all those epic 80s flicks.  And they do not hold up well.  Kinda like santos’ bullshit.  And I’m pretty sure he’s a Bret Ellis character.  In a bad way. 

[WhatTheBuck 28,719]

2 hours ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

 

That’s amusing.

Also, fuck John Kennedy.

[TheStoicPaisano 9,904]

13 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Yes very obvious.  I actually didn’t know about that movie I think until college.  I think it was after meeting jay mcinerney in college  that I went back and watched all those epic 80s flicks.  And they do not hold up well.  Kinda like santos’ bullshit.  And I’m pretty sure he’s a Bret Ellis character.  In a bad way. 

The biggest tumbling, tumbling dickweed in the District.

Santos could take fashion tips from Carruthers, though.

[UpperWestside 6,136]

2 hours ago, Red Five said:

"Boiling a bunny" was code for crazy bitch for a long time. 

Learn something new everyday.

[atomheartbevo 89,465]

Fox News starting to dig into things,

https://www.foxnews.com/media/george-santos-spars-drag-queen-tense-twitter-battle

[Macanudo 12,932]

1 hour ago, TexasHooch said:

Pfft. Allow me to tell you the story about a little 8 year old Hooch who snuck out of his room late one night and decided that some movie on HBO called Deliverance looked cool:

Not cool.  Not cool at all.

When I was 9 or 10, my cousin decided to show me his Dad's VHS porn stash.   I was not prepared for that.  

[Sawbonz 27,445]

6 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

When I was 9 or 10, my cousin decided to show me his Dad's VHS porn stash.   I was not prepared for that.  

[DigglerontheHoof 21,075]

22 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

When I was 9 or 10, my cousin decided to show me his Dad's VHS porn stash.   I was not prepared for that.  

Similar story w/ my cousins, except in was 1976 and it was Swedish Erotica mags.  I wasn't ready,either, but warmed up to Seka quickly. 

[TexasHooch 5,117]

OK.  Back to your regularly scheduled programming:

This is significant.

George Santos Admits 500K Personal Loan to Campaign Wasn’t ‘Personal’ 

It’s been one of the biggest mysteries surrounding George Santos: Where did he get his money? In an amended filing, Santos admits a big chunk wasn’t his.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/george-santos-admits-500k-personal-loan-to-campaign-wasnt-personal?via=newsletter&source=DDAfternoon&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=230124-Digest PM&utm_term=G List Daily Beast Newsletter PM

Quote

George Santos promised reporters a surprise on Tuesday. When he brought coffee and donuts for the journalists staking out his office, it was a letdown. But Santos apparently had another surprise.

Late Tuesday afternoon, Santos’ political operation filed a flurry of amended campaign finance reports, telling the feds, among other things, that a $500,000 loan he gave to his campaign didn’t, in fact, come from his personal funds as he’d previously claimed.

However, while the newly amended filing told us where the funds did not come from, it also raised a new question—where did the money come from?

While both the old and new campaign filings claim that the loans came “from the candidate,” the campaign’s most recent amended filing had ticked the box for “personal funds of the candidate”; on the newly amended filing today, that box is unchecked.

Another amended filing on Tuesday disclosed that a $125,000 “loan from the candidate” in late October also did not come from his “personal funds,” but like the $500,000 question, did not say where the money came from, when the loan was due, or what entity, if any, backed the money.

The New York Times reported earlier this month that the Santos operation had solicited large political donations through an entity that was never registered with the Federal Election Commission. That entity appears to share a name—RedStone Strategies—with a private company The Daily Beast previously reported was tied to Santos.

According to the Times, one donor cut a $25,000 contribution check to RedStone Strategies in late October just days before Santos loaned his campaign $125,000—money he is now telling the FEC came from the candidate, but not from his personal funds.

“The person who solicited the donor said he was asked by Mr. Santos in the weeks leading up to the campaign to approach donors, some of whom had already given the maximum allowed to Mr. Santos’s election campaign, and to help coordinate their donations to RedStone, according to a person familiar with the arrangement who wished to remain anonymous,” the Times reported.

Brendan Fischer, deputy executive director of government watchdog Documented and a campaign finance expert, first raised questions about the source of Santos’ “self-funded” $705,000 campaign bankroll in a Daily Beast report last month.

Santos has previously admitted that he used cash from his company, the Devolder Organization LLC, to finance his campaign—a move legal experts said could add up to an unlawful $705,000 corporate contribution. Santos confirmed to The Daily Beast last month that he withdrew money from his firm specifically to underwrite his campaign, reasoning that he was the firm’s sole owner. (The LLC is not a “sole proprietorship,” however, and its accounts are distinct from Santos’ personal accounts.)

Santos made the same claim in a WABC radio interview, saying the loans were “the money I paid myself through the Devolder Organization.” (Santos’ most recent financial disclosure shows a $750,000 salary from the Devolder Organization, along with dividends valued between $1 million and $5 million.)

Today, Fischer said the attempted correction “isn’t a half-measure—it is hardly even a quarter-measure.”

“I don’t know what they think they are doing,” Fischer told The Daily Beast upon reviewing the filings. “Santos’ campaign might have unchecked the ‘personal funds of candidate’ box, but it is still reporting that the $500,000 came from Santos himself. If the ‘loan from candidate’ didn’t actually come from the candidate, then Santos should come clean and disclose where the money really came from. Santos can’t uncheck a box and make his legal problems go away.”

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,417]

6 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

OK.  Back to your regularly scheduled programming:

This is significant.

George Santos Admits 500K Personal Loan to Campaign Wasn’t ‘Personal’ 

It’s been one of the biggest mysteries surrounding George Santos: Where did he get his money? In an amended filing, Santos admits a big chunk wasn’t his.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/george-santos-admits-500k-personal-loan-to-campaign-wasnt-personal?via=newsletter&source=DDAfternoon&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=230124-Digest PM&utm_term=G List Daily Beast Newsletter PM

 

Just imagine what shenanigans are occurring with politicians who are not facing scrutiny like Santos?

[Bullneck 19,024]

 

 

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

Have there been any interviews done with Santos’ husband?

[Disco Strangler 1,865]

He can’t talk. His mouth is full.  

[TexasHooch 5,117]

1 hour ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Have there been any interviews done with Santos’ husband?

Nope.  There's been no sign of him.  George didn't bring him to his signing in, no longer mentions a husband in his bio (curiously all of the other lies are still there)  and isn't wearing a ring.  As for husband's history, people have been digging a bit but drawing blanks.  For instance, he is supposedly a pharmacist based in NY but there's no record of his license with the state.