Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
The sponsors will try again. I did read a lot of the GOP conference wanted to wait until the ethics committee report comes out later this month. 

I get it, but why? It’s not like you have to show your work to be a congressperson.
Posted

As much as I dislike Santos and want him out of Congress, Jamie Raskin made a good point yesterday (and he was one of the Democrats who voted against expulsion.)  Santos has been indicted but not convicted.  No one has ever been expelled like that.   Santos is a creep and a huge liar but has not outright been convicted yet.  It's a dangerous precedent to set.

And I called it earlier...  The NY GOPers who called for this vote did so to protect their own asses with voters back home.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

As much as I dislike Santos and want him out of Congress, Jamie Raskin made a good point yesterday (and he was one of the Democrats who voted against expulsion.)  Santos has been indicted but not convicted.  No one has ever been expelled like that.   Santos is a creep and a huge liar but has not outright been convicted yet.  It's a dangerous precedent to set.

And I called it earlier...  The NY GOPers who called for this vote did so to protect their own asses with voters back home.  

Yeah they had to do this. 

Traficant wasn't expelled until he was convicted of TEN felonies AND the Ethics Committee recommended his expulsion after that. 

None of this really matters because this doofus likely is getting primaried and won't even be in the general in 2024. 

Posted
33 minutes ago, Red Five said:

He's a complete fraud. Does it even matter if he's convicted for anything? 

We're talking about Congress so we repeat ourselves.

Posted

The problem with reasonable rules is that there can always be someone who pushes the boundaries and the reasonable rules protect them.

Not the mention that it's in the Dem's best interest to keep Santos in office. Most likely they will agree to expel Santos when convicted but it keeps the spotlight on the corruption in the GOP when an obvious criminal is walking the halls of Congress.  And not just a criminal who took a bribe or two but someone who literally stole money from his supporters.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
41 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

As much as I dislike Santos and want him out of Congress, Jamie Raskin made a good point yesterday (and he was one of the Democrats who voted against expulsion.)  Santos has been indicted but not convicted.  No one has ever been expelled like that.   Santos is a creep and a huge liar but has not outright been convicted yet.  It's a dangerous precedent to set.

And I called it earlier...  The NY GOPers who called for this vote did so to protect their own asses with voters back home.  

 

6 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Most places of work, if they discover you lied about your background, education, work history, etc. in order to get the job.... they don't wait for you to be convicted of a crime. 

I don't know the law/rules on this but it would seem that Santo's best protection is not whether or not he'd been convicted but the fact that it takes a supermajority to throw him out.

 

Posted
8 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Most places of work, if they discover you lied about your background, education, work history, etc. in order to get the job.... they don't wait for you to be convicted of a crime. 

Oh, I completely agree.   He should be put out on his ass.   But where do you draw the line of lying?   The entire Congress is full of them.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

 

I don't know the law/rules on this but it would seem that Santo's best protection is not whether or not he'd been convicted but the fact that it takes a supermajority to throw him out.

 

Tbh, requiring 2/3 is good bc otherwise a simple majority would be chaos with how many members of the minority would be thrown out bc of insane clowns like MGT and Boobert leading the charge. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Macanudo said:

As much as I dislike Santos and want him out of Congress, Jamie Raskin made a good point yesterday (and he was one of the Democrats who voted against expulsion.)  Santos has been indicted but not convicted.  No one has ever been expelled like that.   Santos is a creep and a huge liar but has not outright been convicted yet.  It's a dangerous precedent to set.

And I called it earlier...  The NY GOPers who called for this vote did so to protect their own asses with voters back home.  

Yup

 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
Just now, TexArcher said:

Raskin nailed it.

Wait untilt the judicial system fucks this guy, then Congress can fuck him.  He's got plenty of ass for everybody.  No reason to rush.

Also....he's an albatross around the GQP's neck.  Let them tote him around and have to deal with him.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Pancho said:

Yup

 

 

 

 

Thanks for digging that out of X.   I saw that last night and it further reinforces that I wish there were a lot more in Congress like Raskin.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:


🔥

Raskin going to talk shit with handwriting like that?

Posted
12 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

He can’t get proof of forged Brazilian documents because ukraine is in a war?

It's complicated.  You wouldn't understand.

Posted
7 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Anyone that voted for this guy should be removed from the gene pool ….

 

I actually think he is mentally ill and doesn’t understand that he is lying.  I say this because there is a very nice lady in my building that believes Mike Bloomberg is out to get her, and that she was going to be appointed as a part of Biden’s Administration.  Lovely lady, but definitely looney tunes.  And she completely believes it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted

A short, pudgy conservative gay Roman Catholic Ukrainian Jew from Long Island by way of Brazil went on to become an honorable mention All-American collegiate volleyball player before being forcibly removed from the United States House of Representatives.  

This is absolutely hilarious to me.  But it sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.  All the shit we used to say as young adults at a bar to impress people.  Can now be a viable way to get elected to Federal Office where the grift has almost no limits.  

I once gave some serious thought to running for Austin City Council.  But my wife didn't want to go through the public scrutiny despite us living an incredibly bland and boring life.  What fucking idiots we were.  I could just make shit up as I go along and probably win a Senate seat.  It's pretty much how I've gotten this far anyways, may as well make some serious money off of it.  

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

I once gave some serious thought to running for Austin City Council.  But my wife didn't want to go through the public scrutiny despite us living an incredibly bland and boring life.  What fucking idiots we were.  I could just make shit up as I go along and probably win a Senate seat.   

I think someone from here already beat you to that.

Edited by Burt
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
  • Haha 5
Posted

^

That was a fucked up movie.  In this simulation, may as well turn out to be true that George Santos was harvested from the fuhrer's frozen farm.  Alliteration notwithstanding.  

Santos is really starting to remind me of that Kristen Wiig character on SNL where she was constantly trying to insert herself into conversations about how interesting her background was/is.  Can't remember the character name, but I see myself going down a youtube rabbit hole later tonight.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
34 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

But Santos shrugs it off -- "her plea distinctly says 'gbuilty,' not 'guilty,' which means that I am innocent.  I am as innocent as my moopish grandfather."

7bb6fc044531ab1fc215c884f21ddb8013-30-se

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3


×
×
  • Create New...