Oh look here's another lying GOP cunt for FF to felch

Did George Santos grift his own mother’s funeral?

Wikipedia says it has a Cook PVI of D+3, though it's not clear to me if that's based on the voting history of the areas currently in NY-03, or if it's for the previous version of NY-03.

Liar Rep.-elect George Santos admits fabricating key details of his bio

It’s like a sentient Seinfeld bit ran for Congress and won.

https://twitter.com/mattdoyle76/status/1607532388510322691

That's an impressively confident level of fraud.

I’m guessing that he figured that if he wasn’t going to get called out for saying that in 2020, he could do it again in 2022.

I loved the NY Post's reaction which suggested letting him serve his two year term since Democrats have done much worse...

I can't think of any job where you fabricated key parts of your resume and would still be allowed to continue with it as if nothing was wrong with it.

I cannot think of a job where you could talk about jewish space lasers and no one else even hasd a chance for your position. I cannot think of any job where you could suggest drinking bleach and you would continue on without supervision.

Oh, and looks like he got tens of thousands in campaign contributions from a family member of a Russian oligarch. He's referred to Ukraine as a "totalitarian regime" so FF will probably tongue him even harder.

Yeah, you're supposed to make your arms deals illegally under the table, like Reagan, and back radical right-wing family-killing wife-raping Contras, like Reagan.
Oh, wait, Reagan did all that evil to vicariously oppose Russia; Republicans love Putin now, all that sin was for nothing, Reagan's Ghost.
Too bad, so sad.

Even Tulsi Gabbard thinks this guy's a tool: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1607915712722395139?s=20&t=sYr6zbsF5FUlKL7sB5UuWQ

What makes you think she wouldn’t think this guy’s a tool?

Because she comes from the same drawer full of tools.

Is he even gay?

At this point it almost feels like a performance piece.

Clearly have outright lied about so many things, but still get a ton of Republicans saying he was validly elected so it shouldn't change his ability to serve.

Then when in office just vote for completely opposite things and laugh at them.

If there was any strategy to this seems like he's just a compulsive liar who has never had to face consequences for it.

How did the NY Dem party not figure this out before the election?

No surprise that the guy’s a big fan of Trump.

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1608247406432518144?s=46&t=JJ4TNYfiI66j76mNJJpQWw

Feds are looking into how a dude that stiffed his landlords and had to grift off his mother’s funeral was able to loan his campaign 760k.

https://twitter.com/muellershewrote/status/1608276057521590272?s=46&t=B8V4ap_1djdSOZ0YX65Efg

https://twitter.com/Santos4Congress/status/1432477835248259080?s=20&t=iO3CQmOKN0-QY6f9d4w4OQ

That is the pot calling the kettle black. This is the true nature of whataboutism. I am just going to wait here for the Biden Bros to start white knighting for their sleepy hero.

The reality is that both sides are full of pathological politicians.

Broken clock and all that.

Apparently, for now, he’s safe. McCarthy needs his vote to ascend to Nancy’s job.

Here's a bill which should (though if it will or not is another story) get bipartisan support: https://twitter.com/RitchieTorres/status/1608644999385649152?s=20&t=RZ81Bl5voKOmfws3P67gWA

BIG NEWS: I am introducing a bill to require candidates to disclose under oath their employment, educational, & military history so we can punish candidates who lie to voters about their qualifications.

It will be called the Stop Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker (SANTOS) ACT.

Why do you think it should get bipartisan support?

Why shouldn't it?

To give my take (Tuckerfan may have a different one):

Because even politicians from all stripes should agree that politicians should be truthful about their credentials. Yes, all sorts of forms of lying come with the territory, but simply making up things about your background should be off limits. Not only does it make it difficult for a voter to evaluate a candidate properly, it signals a moral deficit that makes a politician unfit for public offie

Because a system where a person can get elected to office on fraudulent backgrounds like Santos without meaningful consequences undermines democracy. And hypothetically, politicians should be pro-democracy.

Because it's in the communal good to provide a major deterrent to people acting like Santos did.

Because governing should be about more than "how can we screw or obstruct the other side?" and "what's in it for me and mine?"

Because, although I have no polls to prove is, this legislation would probably have high levels of popular approval among voters of all stripes and have no real added price tag, and crazily enough, politicians should support reasonable, cost-neutral policies their constituents want that.

Because even looking at politics through the frame of the lowest level of "what's in it for me?" having a George Santos in the mix is (or should be) an embarrassment for the Republicans that they should want to avoid in the future. Assuming they do not convince Santos to resign, pretty much everything he does and says is gong to hurt the GOP more than having even a Democratic replacement.

And similarly, because voting no on a bill designed to bring concrete punishments to people who lie about their credentials as they run for office is not a good look.

The sad thing is there is a good chance that the bill does not get anywhere close to the bipartisan support it should. I think there have to be at least 20 Republicans principled/smart enough to know that opposing the bill is a bad thing. But there are enough people who will reflexively vote no on anything sponsored by a Dem that they will attempt some rationale why they will vote against it.