╌>

House Ethics Committee releases scathing report on George Santos | The Hill

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  evilone  •  7 months ago  •  112 comments

By:   Mychael Schnell, Emily Brooks, and Mike Lillis (The Hill)

House Ethics Committee releases scathing report on George Santos | The Hill
The House Ethics Committee in a report released Thursday said there is clear evidence that Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) committed serious crimes, though it stopped short of recommending formal sanctions, as some had hoped it would do. The panel referred its findings of "potential violations of federal criminal law" to the Department of Justice, and…

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


by Mychael Schnell, Emily Brooks and Mike Lillis - 11/16/23 10:05 AM ET
by Mychael Schnell, Emily Brooks and Mike Lillis - 11/16/23 10:05 AM ET

The House Ethics Committee in a report released Thursday said there is clear evidence that Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) committed serious crimes, though it stopped short of recommending formal sanctions, as some had hoped it would do.

The panel referred its findings of "potential violations of federal criminal law" to the Department of Justice, and its report will raise questions about whether the House will expel Santos, who has been a subject of controversy since before he formally became a member of Congress — and has publicly admitted to fabricating aspects of his backstory and resume.

"[T]he evidence uncovered by the Investigative Subcommittee (ISC) revealed that Representative George Santos cannot be trusted," the report reads. "At nearly every opportunity, he placed his desire for private gain above his duty to uphold the Constitution, federal law, and ethical principles."

The report found that Santos "blatantly stole from his campaign" and "deceived donors into providing what they thought were contributions to his campaign but were in fact payments for his personal benefit."

Transgressions detailed by the committee include Santos potentially inappropriately using thousands of dollars of funds from his campaign on a trip to Atlantic City, a trip to Las Vegas, and on botox and other cosmetic procedures. The committee said it was unable to verify whether those expenditures had a campaign purpose, but they appeared not to.

It also detailed transactions made by Santos after he personally received tens of thousands of dollars from an outside strategy firm created to support his campaign, including a $4,127.80 purchase at luxury brand Hermes; payments for his own personal credit cards and debt; and small purchases from Only Fans, the subscription platform mostly used for adult content.

Following release of the report, Santos said he would no longer seek reelection but that he will continue to serve "up until I am allowed" — while tearing into the committee.

"It is a disgusting politicized smear that shows the depths of how low our federal government has sunk. Everyone who participated in this grave miscarriage of Justice should all be ashamed of themselves," Santos said in a post on X.

The announcement marked a reversal from his comments earlier this month, when the Congressman told CNN in an interview that he would run for his seat in 2024 even if the House voted to expel him.

While the committee did not make a formal recommendation on expelling Santos, as Chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) previously told reporters would be the case, the top lawmakers on the panel said "Santos' conduct warrants public condemnation, is beneath the dignity of the office, and has brought severe discredit to the House."

The final product is sure to exacerbate the controversy surrounding Santos, who is facing 23 federal criminal counts and has already endured two expulsion efforts — with a third likely on the horizon.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said in a statement following the report's release that he plans to submit a privileged resolution to expel Santos when the House returns Nov. 28 after the Thanksgiving holiday, which will force another vote on the matter.

The release of the report has already swayed at least one lawmaker who was opposed to expulsion earlier this month: Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said he will now support booting Santos from office.

"The report's findings are extremely damning and I would vote to expel," Raskin told The Hill in a text message.

The Ethics report could also add to the legal peril Santos is facing. Federal prosecutors have charged the New York Republican with 23 criminal counts on allegations that he misled donors, fraudulently received unemployment benefits, lied on House financial disclosures, inflated his campaign finance reports and charged his donors' credit cards without authorization.

He has pleaded not guilty to all counts, and his trial is set for September 2024.

In a statement accompanying the report, the chairman and ranking member of the panel said there is "substantial evidence" to show that Santos "knowingly caused his campaign committee to file false or incomplete reports with the Federal Election Commission; used campaign funds for personal purposes; engaged in fraudulent conduct in connection with RedStone Strategies LLC; and engaged in knowing and willful violations of the Ethics in Government Act as it relates to his Financial Disclosure (FD) Statements filed with the House."

The panel also found that Santos "reported fictitious loans to political committees to induce donors and party committees to make further contributions to his campaign — and then diverted more campaign money to himself as purported 'repayments' of those fictitious loans."

"He used his connections to high value donors and other political campaigns to obtain additional funds for himself through fraudulent or otherwise questionable business dealings," adding that he "sustained all of this through a constant series of lies to his constituents, donors, and staff about his background and experience."

The scathing report also tore into Santos for his "obfuscation and delay," saying that his "lack of candor during the investigation itself" was "particularly troubling."

Despite Santos repeatedly saying in public that he would like to prove his innocence and would fully cooperate with the committee, the panel said he declined to submit a signed statement responding to the allegations in the report, declined to voluntarily provide documents and information to the investigators, and declined to provide a statement under oath.

Nonetheless, the committee said it "compiled a voluminous record consisting of over 170,000 pages of documents and testimony from dozens of witnesses, including financial statements, contemporaneous communications, and other materials."

Though the committee had considered issuing a subpoena to Santos, it decided not to in order to avoid further delaying the investigation, believing that Santos would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and that his testimony would have "low evidentiary value given his admitted practice of embellishment."

The Hill reached out to Santos for comment.

Several New York Republicans have led the months-long effort to expel Santos, which has so far proven unsuccessful amid the ongoing Ethics and Justice Department investigations. Without a formal conviction, even some Democrats have defended Santos's right to remain in Congress, as other indicted lawmakers have done in years past.

Former Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), for instance, was indicted for insider trading in 2018 but remained in Congress for more than a year afterwards, winning reelection over that span. He resigned from Congress the same day he pleaded guilty to the charges, making expulsion unnecessary.

More recently, in 2020, former Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) also stepped down from Congress voluntarily, a month after pleading guilty to campaign finance fraud. Both he and Collins were sentenced to prison terms, though both were pardoned by former President Trump.

After the first two efforts to expel Santos failed, Santos's top critics are hoping the release of the Ethics report will help convince enough holdouts that he should be removed from office.

"Many of my colleagues want to hang their hat on a report like that before they vote yes," Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) said Wednesday as the House was leaving Washington for the long holiday recess.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who voted to expel Santos earlier this month, suggested this week that a formal sanctions recommendation from Ethics isn't necessary to remove him, as long as the committee's report "clearly justifies expulsion."

Updated at 11:56 a.m. ET

Tags George Santos Michael Guest

Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Red Box Rules

Stay on topic. The topic is George Santos and this ethics report. Off topic posts risk being removed.


 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1  seeder  evilone    7 months ago

Looks like Rep Santos might be in a world of hurt. It would be interesting to see the Republican House actually expel one of their own, but no telling what they will do. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @1    7 months ago
Looks like Rep Santos might be in a world of hurt. It would be interesting to see the Republican House actually expel one of their own, but no telling what they will do. 

I think they will when he is convicted.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.1  seeder  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    7 months ago

That may take longer than his term. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @1.1.1    7 months ago

Well, if he's gone, he's gone, probably going to do a short stint in prison.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
1.2  afrayedknot  replied to  evilone @1    7 months ago

“…but no telling what they will do.”

They will pull a Pontius Pilate…washing their hands as he as decided not to continue and thus absolving themselves from making the condemnation the law requires. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3  devangelical  replied to  evilone @1    7 months ago
Looks like Rep Santos might be in a world of hurt.

I think he'll like federal prison. with the future influx of xtian conservatives being institutionalized, he'll be popular...

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.4  cjcold  replied to  evilone @1    7 months ago

Beginning to wonder if there any republicans who aren't bent.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
1.4.1  GregTx  replied to  cjcold @1.4    7 months ago

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.2  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @1.4    7 months ago
Beginning to wonder if there any republicans who aren't bent.

There are, just like there are some Democrats who aren't bent.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2  TᵢG    7 months ago
The House Ethics Committee in a report released Thursday said there is clear evidence that Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) committed serious crimes, though it stopped short of recommending formal sanctions, as some had hoped it would do.

What took them so long?   Was this not obvious immediately after he was elected?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @2    7 months ago

Yeah, but who cares. Can't do much to get rid of him until he's had his day in court.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    7 months ago
Yeah, but who cares.

His constituents care!   Those who care about the integrity of our politicians care.    We have too many lying, unethical, self-centered clowns in Congress as it is.

Every responsible individual should care that a con-man was able to lie and cheat his way into Congress.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    7 months ago
Can't do much to get rid of him until he's had his day in court.

Gosh, you mean wait for convictions???????

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.2    7 months ago

Do you think Santos should be expelled from the House?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    7 months ago
Yeah, but who cares. Can't do much to get rid of him until he's had his day in court.

I think the desired response is to go off on Santos and demand that Congress do something!

I personally prefer to let the courts handle it. Congress can't imprison anyone, and if he did what he is accused of, he should do time!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    7 months ago
Congress can't imprison anyone, and if he did what he is accused of, he should do time!

Expelling him from the House is independent of finding him legally guilty of a crime.

  • Vote to expel him     (An act of the House)
  • Try him criminally     (An act of the judicial system)
I personally prefer to let the courts handle it.

Are you against having a vote to expel him (clearly within the power of the House to expel him)?   If so, why?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.5    7 months ago
Expelling him from the House is independent of finding him legally guilty of a crime.
  • Vote to expel him     (An act of the House)
  • Try him criminally     (An act of the judicial system)

I wonder why you find it necessary to state the damn obvious so often.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.7  seeder  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.5    7 months ago
Expelling him from the House is independent of finding him legally guilty of a crime.

I wonder how long it will take for the DoJ to file new charges?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.6    7 months ago

To make my point crystal clear to mitigate deflection tactics.

Regardless, you deflect rather than answer a simple question.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.1    7 months ago
His constituents care!

Then they'll have a chance to show it.

  Those who care about the integrity of our politicians care.

If you find someone who believes our politicians have integrity, sell them a bridge.

    We have too many lying, unethical, self-centered clowns in Congress as it is.

I believe the current popular term is "Rich Men North of Richmond".

Every responsible individual should care that a con-man was able to lie and cheat his way into Congress.

You act like that doesn't happen with great frequency.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.8    7 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.9    7 months ago
Then they'll have a chance to show it.

Yes they will.   

In the meantime, the House has the chance to hold accountable those like Santos who are at the extreme end of conning the electorate to become a member of Congress.    The House should have ethics and should act on violations — especially the extreme violations.   They should have a precedent of taking action.

Do you disagree?

If you find someone who believes our politicians have integrity, sell them a bridge.
You act like that doesn't happen with great frequency.

You ignored the sentence I intentionally included in anticipation of smart-ass comments like the above:

TiG@2.1.1We have too many lying, unethical, self-centered clowns in Congress as it is.
 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.1.12  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.11    7 months ago
Do you disagree?

Depends.  In Santos' case, it would appear that there is general agreement that his behavior was not only unethical but criminal, so I would not object to his removal.

That said, if we're going to expel Congressmen/women for "conning the electorate", I'm not sure how many we'll have left. 

Generally speaking, I would worry about the practice of expelling elected officials becoming weaponized to target political rivals.  We're perilously close to that with presidential impeachment if we haven't crossed that bridge already.  Give lying, unethical, self-centered clowns a weapon and they'll use it.

Further, it seems odd to me that there is no prohibition against convicted felons serving in Congress or as POTUS.  That's a Constitutional change I could get behind quite easily.

You ignored the sentence I intentionally included in anticipation of smart-ass comments like the above:

You stated something self evident and the comment did not seem to require a reply.  My comment clearly affirms the statement, so I'm not sure why your knickers are in a twist about it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.12    7 months ago
That said, if we're going to expel Congressmen/women for "conning the electorate", I'm not sure how many we'll have left. 

There are, of course, many degrees in this range.  Every politician cons the electorate to some degree since lying is a modern necessity to getting elected.   Santos, however, is at the high end of conning and this should be dealt with.

Generally speaking, I would worry about the practice of expelling elected officials becoming weaponized to target political rivals. 

Not a great reason, IMO, to avoid dealing with extreme cases like Santos.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.14  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.13    7 months ago
Every politician cons the electorate to some degree since lying is a modern necessity to getting elected. 

Really?  Why do you think that?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.14    7 months ago

Other than the fact that it works?  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.16  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.15    7 months ago
Other than the fact that it works?

Yes.  Why is it necessary to lie to voters in order to get elected?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.16    7 months ago

Because the competition does so, coupled with the fact that the voters (for the most part) buy it.

In short, if one is elected on what one claims they will do and have done (regardless of the truth) then those who are truthful will be at a disadvantage.

In terms of presidential politics, compare and contrast Trump's campaign style with that of Romney.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2.1.18  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.13    7 months ago
Every politician cons the electorate to some degree since lying is a modern necessity to getting elected.

Every one?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.19  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.17    7 months ago
Because the competition does so, coupled with the fact that the voters (for the most part) buy it.

Which is why so many people don't waste their time worrying about voting.  What's the point in trying to decipher the best or worst liar?

It is also why our government is filled with liars - psychopaths, sociopaths and other assorted less than desirable people with mental health disorders in positions of power over us.

I don't understand how this system will continue to be viable or palatable.

BTW, our politicians may rate high on the narcissistic scale, but without a high propensity to toward not really caring about what others think of them (such as psychopathy) a person with just NPD would probably have a difficult time surviving the trauma of having half the country hating them and their agenda at all times.  A psychopath would not care.  This is why I stated that we must do a better job of vetting political candidates.

I will leave you with just one good example of the mental fragility of a person with NPD.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Krishna @2.1.18    7 months ago

Yes.   I do not think there is a politician out there who has not lied to the electorate.

This is technical conning to the tiniest degree.   

In contrast we have major-league con-jobs such as Santos.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.21  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.20    7 months ago
In contrast we have major-league con-jobs such as Santos.

Who was responsible for vetting Santos?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.21    7 months ago

The GOP has some responsibility, but the burden is with the electorate.

Why do you ask?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.23  JohnRussell  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.19    7 months ago
Whatever the case may be, Trump has continued to make plainly dangerous and stunning remarks. Notwithstanding his rival Governor Ron DeSantis’s  recent claim  that Trump has “lost the zip on his fastball,” the former president continues to produce substantive ideas—which is not to say they are wise or prudent, but they are certainly more than gibberish. In fact, much of what Trump is discussing is un-American, not merely in the sense of being antithetical to some imagined national set of mores, but in that his ideas contravene basic principles of the Constitution or other bedrock bases of American government.

Trump Isn’t Merely Unhinged (msn.com)

--

  I   acknowledged   in August 2022 that Trump’s cult “stinks of fascism,” but I counseled “against rushing toward the F-word: Things are poised to get worse, and we need to know what to watch for.”

The events of the past month, and especially Trump’s Veterans Day speech, confirm to me that the moment has arrived.

For weeks, Trump has been ramping up his rhetoric. Early last month, he echoed the vile and obsessively germophobic language of Adolf Hitler by   describing   immigrants as disease-ridden terrorists and psychiatric patients who are “poisoning the blood of our country.” His   address in Claremont , New Hampshire, on Saturday was the usual hot mess of random thoughts, but near the end, it took a more sinister turn. (It’s almost impossible to follow, but you can try to read the full text   here .) In one passage in particular, Trump melded religious and political rhetoric to aim not at foreign nations or immigrants, but at his fellow citizens. This is when he crossed one of the last remaining lines that separated his usual authoritarian bluster from recognizable fascism:

We will drive out the globalists, we will cast out the communists, Marxists, fascists. We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country … On Veterans Day, we pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections and will do anything possible … legally or illegally to destroy America and to destroy the American dream.

Trump Crosses a Crucial Line (msn.com)

==

Donald Trump   is currently testing the limits of that unwritten rule by all but openly campaigning on a platform of tearing democracy down.

Perhaps the clearest sign came in a speech on Veterans Day where he vowed to “root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections.” Calling one’s opponents subhuman and vowing aggressive action against them is a hallmark of classical fascist rhetoric, so much so that the Washington Post’s headline — on a news article, not an opinion piece — described it as “ echoing Hitler [and] Mussolini.

They’re not wrong:   Anyone familiar with Nazi propaganda   can tell you that it commonly dehumanized Jews by describing us as rats or diseases. Trump has used such language more than once: Just last month, he claimed immigrants were “ poisoning the blood of our country .”

When Trump tells you he’s an authoritarian, believe him (msn.com)

You seem to think that because all politicians lie, we should turn our backs on all of them. That there is no difference between a Trump and a Biden or Pelosi.  That strikes me as apathetic and naive. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.24  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.22    7 months ago
The GOP has some responsibility, but the burden is with the electorate. Why do you ask?

I don't understand why the political party is not responsible for vetting the people that they allow to run as a representative of their party firstly.

Then the news media should use their resources to vet the proposed candidates.

Lastly, few in the electorate have the time or resources to vet government officials - nor do they have the platform to be recognized as a vetting authority that should be respected.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.25  mocowgirl  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.23    7 months ago
You seem to think that because all politicians lie, we should turn our backs on all of them. That there is no difference between a Trump and a Biden or Pelosi.  That strikes me as apathetic and naive. 

JR,

In all sincerity, you are entitled to your opinion regardless of how flawed it is.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.1.26  Snuffy  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.24    7 months ago
I don't understand why the political party is not responsible for vetting the people that they allow to run as a representative of their party firstly.

Mostly because I think there is too much money and power in politics and the political parties will do whatever they can to get their side elected.  It does them no good to pre-vet candidates and possibly put out one that is not as popular as that allows a greater chance of the "other side" gaining a win.

Then the news media should use their resources to vet the proposed candidates.

Perhaps back in the days of Murrow, but today's news media is too caught up in the money and politics themselves to put forth an honest product. 

Lastly, few in the electorate have the time or resources to vet government officials - nor do they have the platform to be recognized as a vetting authority that should be respected.

And this I fear is what will end our democracy. The electorate has become too stupid to think for themselves and instead resemble an old Miller Lite commercial.  Two sides shouting slogans at each other.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.27  JohnRussell  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.25    7 months ago
Which is why so many people don't waste their time worrying about voting.  What's the point in trying to decipher the best or worst liar?

Your words. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.28  mocowgirl  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.26    7 months ago
The electorate has become too stupid to think for themselves and instead resemble an old Miller Lite commercial

I doubt there was a time in US history where the majority were capable of thinking on the best course of action on a national level.  Today's electorate needs an education on what is happening globally and the players involved to properly vet any of our national candidates to represent us.

If the electorate is too stupid, then the issue is the government of the US has weakened and weaponized our public school system to engineer that level of stupidity.

Our politicians know how to "frame the issues" to game the electorate.  It is done by both parties - hence the bipartisan support for lying.

Since 2003, the Democrats are just as adept at "framing the issues" as the GOP.  The electorate loses trying to decipher how much is fact from how much is fiction.

The partisans choose a team and root for it like politics is a sporting event where they have waged their bottom dollar.

George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics (berkeley.edu)

By   Bonnie Azab Powell , NewsCenter   | 27 October 2003

BERKELEY   – With Republicans controlling the Senate, the House, and the White House and enjoying a large margin of victory for California Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, it's clear that the Democratic Party is in crisis. George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff.

The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.

Rockridge's job is to reframe public debate, to create balance from a progressive perspective. It's one thing to analyze language and thought, it's another thing to create it. That's what we're about. It's a matter of asking 'What are the central ideas of progressive thought from a moral perspective?'

How does language influence the terms of political debate?

Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.29  mocowgirl  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.27    7 months ago
Your words. 

Are they incorrect?

Did Not Vote wins elections.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.24    7 months ago
I don't understand why the political party is not responsible for vetting the people that they allow to run as a representative of their party firstly.

I noted that.   But it is the electorate that decides.

I agree with your disappointment in the party organizations.

Then the news media should use their resources to vet the proposed candidates

To enable an informed electorate.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.31  JohnRussell  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.29    7 months ago
Did Not Vote wins elections.

Actually, Did Not Vote doesnt count in elections. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.1.32  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.13    7 months ago
Not a great reason, IMO, to avoid dealing with extreme cases like Santos.

Well... as I said... I would not object to his removal.

It's just something we need to be careful about.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.33  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.30    7 months ago
But it is the electorate that decides.

Based on faulty or incomplete information.

This system must be working in favor of the politicians currently in charge or there would be changes in the vetting process.

The electorate loses no matter what they do in this scenario.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.34  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.33    7 months ago

I could agree more with you if we were not watching the GOP electorate overwhelmingly nominate Trump.

This failure of reason is not due to a lack of sound information.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2.1.35  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @2.1.18    7 months ago

Every politician cons the electorate to some degree since lying is a modern necessity to getting elected.

Every one?

The reason I mention that is that there are districts that are so solidly Democrat or Republican that an incumbent does have to worry about getting elected.

And often people lie them and just assume the politician will do what they like.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2.1.36  Krishna  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.28    7 months ago
Since 2003, the Democrats are just as adept at "framing the issues" as the GOP. 

Well there have been Democrats who have mastered the art of communication from time to time-- even before 2003.. JFK comes to mind. And others.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.37  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.34    7 months ago
I could agree more with you if we were not watching the GOP electorate overwhelmingly nominate Trump. This failure of reason is not due to a lack of sound information.

Trump became the answer when every other politician campaigned on the same old lies and promptly lined their own pockets to the detriment of their states/districts.  

The POS currently residing in the White House is the result of neither major political party fielding a candidate that should be POTUS.   

NEITHER major political party is promoting candidates under the age of 50.  

Voting for the same old, same old is not popular with a large portion of the population.

Fearmongering of the other has become so common that it holds little to no sway these days.  The human nervous systems cannot maintain that level of stress without experiencing severe health problems.   

Until career politicians come up with a new way to divide the voters, Trump is likely just the first of wealthy men buying their way into political power.  

John Wayne could have been president based on his acting roles not on his ability to govern.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.37    7 months ago

It is the responsibility of the electorate to choose their representatives in government.

Right now, the GOP has several individuals vying for the nomination.   The nominee will be the result of votes from the GOP electorate (largely).   That group has the power, right now, to nominate Haley (for example).   They will (almost certainly) nominate Trump instead.

They have volumes of sound information (negative) regarding Trump.   Substantially more than what it took to push aside candidates in the past (remember Gary Hart?).   Yet they are choosing Trump.   

This is their choice.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.39  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.38    7 months ago
It is the responsibility of the electorate to choose their representatives in government.

That should be the case.  However, it was in the news that Democrats actually paid for ads promoting the GOP candidates that would be the easiest for them to defeat in the election.  Dirty politics have consequences when the least desirable candidate gained the nomination through chicanery and then won the office.

Right now, the GOP has several individuals vying for the nomination.   The nominee will be the result of votes from the GOP electorate (largely).   That group has the power, right now, to nominate Haley (for example).   They will (almost certainly) nominate Trump instead.

So?  It is the responsibility of the Democrats to quit worrying about who the GOP nominates and field a candidate that can defeat Trump.  If they can't then they don't deserve to hold office.

They have volumes of sound information (negative) regarding Trump.   Substantially more than what it took to push aside candidates in the past (remember Gary Hart?).   Yet they are choosing Trump.   

So?  What politician isn't a dirt bag?

This is their choice.

Definitely.  Trump probably gained a larger following today because there was no wars and they prospered financially during the 4 years that Trump was president. 

It is the responsibility of the career politicians to show through what they have always supported that they will provide more peace and prosperity that Trump delivered.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.40  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.39    7 months ago
So? 

The responsibility for picking the best nominee is that of the electorate.   Do you not agree?   Why the 'so?' stuff?

So?  What politician isn't a dirt bag?

Compare Trump with Romney.    I can easily see profound differences between these two men and make an informed choice on who would be a better GOP nominee.   One can argue that every politician is a dirt bag but they are clearly NOT equivalent.

It is the responsibility of the career politicians to show through what they have always supported that they will provide more peace and prosperity that Trump delivered.  

And the responsibility of the electorate is to make good, informed choices.   Do you not agree?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
2.1.41  afrayedknot  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.40    7 months ago

“And the responsibility of the electorate to make good, informed choices.”

If only.

There is no argument to be made to dissuade the 30%-40% of sycophants and the fakers dozen hereabouts. He is unequivocally unqualified, unapologetic and untrustworthy. And everyone with a scintilla of integrity knows it.

Let us let it play out, warts and all, and then hopefully move on from this nonsense. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.42  TᵢG  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.41    7 months ago
If only.

Indeed

Let us let it happen, warts and all, and then move on from this nonsense. 

It seems inevitable that Trump will be the nominee.   But we should all act to dissuade this.   Just letting it happen without resistance  encourages more of the same.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.43  Texan1211  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.41    7 months ago

I hope one day you also begin to notice what Joe Biden has done.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.44  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.43    7 months ago

Notice that Biden has faithfully served this nation with honor and dignity for over forty years as US Senator, Vice President and as the current Commander in Chief and President of the United States?

Americans noticed and that is why they elected Biden, not Trump!

original

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.45  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.39    7 months ago
It is the responsibility of the Democrats to quit worrying about who the GOP nominates and field a candidate that can defeat Trump.  

Exactly.

Instead of focusing on Trump, focus on their own problems.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.46  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1.44    7 months ago

I'll note the Biden Family has profited quite handsomely from the sale of Joe Biden.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.47  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.40    7 months ago
Why the 'so?' stuff?

Whether you recognize it or not, you are using the shaming tactic trying to force people to agree with your viewpoints.

Also, you are cherry picking my statements. 

If it is possible, it would be beneficial to your political agenda to quit harping on the responsibility of the GOP supporters and make a positive case for supporting the Democrats who are likely to champion open borders, war in the Middle East and putting males in females' restrooms, locker rooms, and sports.

I am thoroughly disgusted with both major political parties and their ineptness and corruption.  Maybe this mindset is becoming more common and we are seeing the rise of the people who really are independent politically because both choices are so unpalatable to them.  

After watching thousands of hours of videos on how people are manipulated by people with their own personal agendas, I largely ignore people who use such tactics online.  There is no real discussion to be gained with such people because either it is a product of their freewill or because they don't have freewill because of their genetics and social conditioning.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.48  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.46    7 months ago

Unlike ours with Santos your accusations are unfounded...

original

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.49  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1.48    7 months ago

No, mine are based on testimony, emails, a laptop, and bank records.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.50  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.47    7 months ago

I am making my argument.   I am offering logic in response to the question that you raised @2.1.21 ("Who was responsible for vetting Santos?") which started the discussion on responsibilities of the electorate, the party and the media.

My position is that the responsibility for picking the best nominee is that of the electorate.    I have done nothing other than support that position with logic and examples.

If it is possible, it would be beneficial to your political agenda to quit harping on the responsibility of the GOP supporters and make a positive case for supporting the Democrats who are likely to champion open borders, war in the Middle East and putting males in females' restrooms, locker rooms, and sports.

You want me to not support my position on the responsibility of the electorate (a question that you raised) and instead make a case for why people should vote for Democrats?

And you think that this is my political agenda???

Just to help reset whatever you are thinking, I do not want Biden to be PotUS.   Trump is far worse in many ways which I have enumerated in this forum, but neither should be PotUS.

Currently, my choice is Nikki Haley.   That is who, of those running, I currently support.

Now, let's reset without the presumption.    Tell me what you want to discuss.   Show me what you think I have cherry-picked, ask whatever questions you wish.   

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
2.1.51  afrayedknot  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.42    7 months ago

“But we should all act to dissuade this.”

Of course…and in acknowledgment that 30%-40% of the gop apologists and the fakers dozen around here will never be dissuaded.

But they can be dismissed at the ballot box. Our vote is the ultimate determinator of the direction we choose to take. Perhaps a forlorn hope, but the only remedy we have to face the ignorance and fear that is paralyzing us…by casting an informed ballot. Peace.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.52  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.49    7 months ago

Then produce them, from when Biden held any office...

A canceled check from legit loan of 2018 doesn't count!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.53  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1.52    7 months ago

you can use Google all by yourself, can't you?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.54  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.53    7 months ago

What do your lame divisions have to do with George Santos?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.55  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1.54    7 months ago

Can you follow the thread?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.56  TᵢG  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.51    7 months ago
Of course…and in acknowledgment that 30%-40% of the gop apologists and the fakers dozen around here will never be dissuaded.

Tru dat.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.57  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.47    7 months ago

Part of the problem is that some folks merely vote against someone instead of voting for someone.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.58  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.50    7 months ago
Show me what you think I have cherry-picked, ask whatever questions you wish.

Dirty tactics used by Democrats to promote and nominate candidates like Trump in the hopes of beating a weak candidate.

The responsibility of the Democrats to nominate the candidate with a platform that is supported by the majority of the electorate.  If their current candidate is supported by the majority of the electorate then it does not matter who the GOP nominates, does it?

I supported Bernie Sanders.  He lost.  There was not a candidate nominated that I would support for any reason so I did not cast a vote for POTUS in 2016 or 2020.  It is shaping up to be the same in 2024 unless the Democrats throw Biden to the curb and finds someone I can support under the age of 50.

I have no interest in who the GOP nominates because I don't vote for Republicans.  Whether they nominate Donald Trump or Donald Duck makes no difference to me.

What does interest me is the fact the political machine in this country is so inept and corrupt that Trump is a viable, acceptable and electable candidate.

Career politicians have been representing the interests of Wall Street to the detriment of Main Street.  

War and open borders is an integral part of the US economy for Wall Street.  It is detrimental to the lives of Main Street who have to deal with the illegal immigrants and die in the wars.

There are a substantial number of people in the US (like me) who do not understand the political game, but we can see the headlines where our reps are flying around the world, attending elite functions and throwing billions of our taxpayer dollars to a handful of wealthy men inside and outside of the US.  We are not getting a return on their investment that we are aware of.  

There are two (or many more) Americas.  People seem to be unaware of anyone outside of their community.  It is the responsibility of the politicians to represent the interests of the community that elected them.  Doesn't seem to be happening for the most part.

This is a rambling comment because I wanted to reply in a timely manner and I need to fix lunch.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.59  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.58    7 months ago
Dirty tactics used by Democrats to promote and nominate candidates like Trump in the hopes of beating a weak candidate.

What are you looking for here?   Do you want me to agree that the Ds use dirty tactics too?   That the Ds want the Rs to nominate a weak candidate to help them win?   I am one of the last persons to defend a political party.  I do not believe I have ever suggested that either party is noble and honorable and have railed against political parties in general.    So, again, I am at a loss as to why you even bring this up with me.

The responsibility of the Democrats to nominate the candidate with a platform that is supported by the majority of the electorate.  If their current candidate is supported by the majority of the electorate then it does not matter who the GOP nominates, does it?

Of course it matters.   The Ds and the Rs put forth their nominees and then the nation is stuck (in effect) with choosing one of them to be the PotUS.   As an independent I greatly care about having someone to vote FOR rather than be stuck with two terrible candidates or making a protest vote.

If the GOP nominates Nikki Haley (for example), I would vote FOR her.   I would be able to cast a vote for someone that I believe is suitable to be PotUS.   If the GOP nominates Trump, I do not have that option.   Same for the Ds.   They could put forth someone other than Biden and give us the option to vote FOR someone suitable to be PotUS.

I supported Bernie Sanders.  He lost.  There was not a candidate nominated that I would support for any reason so I did not cast a vote for POTUS in 2016 or 2020.  It is shaping up to be the same in 2024 unless the Democrats throw Biden to the curb and finds someone I can support under the age of 50.

Again, not sure what you expect me to say here other than repeat that my position is that neither Biden nor Trump should be PotUS.

I have no interest in who the GOP nominates because I don't vote for Republicans.  Whether they nominate Donald Trump or Donald Duck makes no difference to me.

I have great interest because I will vote for a Republican (or a Democrat) based on circumstances.

What does interest me is the fact the political machine in this country is so inept and corrupt that Trump is a viable, acceptable and electable candidate.

Yes it is interesting in a disgusting way.   But note that Trump would not be viable if the GOP electorate did not indicate through polls, etc. that they will vote for him.   Back to my point about the responsibility of the electorate (and, secondarily, the responsibility of the political parties).

Career politicians have been representing the interests of Wall Street to the detriment of Main Street.  

Indeed.

War and open borders is an integral part of the US economy for Wall Street.  It is detrimental to the lives of Main Street who have to deal with the illegal immigrants and die in the wars.

Yes

There are a substantial number of people in the US (like me) who do not understand the political game, but we can see the headlines where our reps are flying around the world, attending elite functions and throwing billions of our taxpayer dollars to a handful of wealthy men inside and outside of the US.  We are not getting a return on their investment that we are aware of.  

I agree, not even close.   We do not have statesmen (statespersons?) but rather self-centered, opportunists serving as our 'representatives' in government.

There are two (or many more) Americas.  People seem to be unaware of anyone outside of their community.  It is the responsibility of the politicians to represent the interests of the community that elected them.  Doesn't seem to be happening for the most part.

The quality of politicians has been (generally) degrading since the 1960s.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.60  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.59    7 months ago
The quality of politicians has been (generally) degrading since the 1960s.

From what I have read, the quality of politicians have not changed over centuries, if ever in any country.  Men, who are determined to have power over others, are fighting to be served by others, not fighting to serve others.

That would be one of the reasons that so many people are not going to fight one another for the privilege of serving the interests of corrupt politicians.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.61  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.59    7 months ago
Yes it is interesting in a disgusting way.   But note that Trump would not be viable if the GOP electorate did not indicate through polls, etc. that they will vote for him.   Back to my point about the responsibility of the electorate (and, secondarily, the responsibility of the political parties).

Blaming the electorate because both parties have failed to address the needs of Main Street is ridiculous.

Trump delivered what career politicians didn't and won't because they have spent their lives lining their own pockets at the expense of Main Street.

Isn't insanity repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

If the electorate liked the result of a Trump presidency, why wouldn't they do the same thing again?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.62  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.61    7 months ago
Blaming the electorate because both parties have failed to address the needs of Main Street is ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous to state that the electorate determines the nominee?

Trump delivered what career politicians didn't and won't because they have spent their lives lining their own pockets at the expense of Main Street.

What, specifically, are you saying?    You just stated that you do not support Trump and that you do not vote for Republicans so I cannot interpret your comment as being support for Trump yet it reads that way.   

Isn't insanity repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

The GOP electorate apparently is going to nominate Trump regardless of the fact that he is the only PotUS in US history who has tried to steal a presidential election through fraud, lying, coercion, and incitement and that he very well could wind up a convicted felon.

To me that seems insane.

If the electorate liked the result of a Trump presidency, why wouldn't they do the same thing again?

They would do the same thing again.   The problem is the perception of what Trump did and what he likely will do.   It is amazing to me that someone could wholly ignore the Big Lie con-job, the classified documents, and all the other negatives of Trump (e.g. intentional misrepresentation of the severity of the pandemic, narcissism, abysmal character, etc.) and vote for Trump merely for policies that any other GOP PotUS would likely support.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.63  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.60    7 months ago
From what I have read, the quality of politicians have not changed over centuries, if ever in any country.  Men, who are determined to have power over others, are fighting to be served by others, not fighting to serve others.

Compare Trump with Romney, McCain, Bush (either), Dole, Ford, Reagan, Eisenhower.   (sticking with GOPs at the presidential level)

I see a profound difference between Trump and these men.   

The fact that someone running for office is based on ego, power, prestige, etc. does not preclude every semblance of statesmanship and a desire to actually accomplish something of value for the nation.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.64  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.62    7 months ago

I am not disagreeing with you.  I am just evaluating why there is support for Trump.

I am not going to blame the people who have been screwed over by career politicians who have used them to live life on a level that few people can even imagine. 

Not only that, people have lost their loved ones, their limbs and their lives in wars that were a direct result of unnecessary involvement in wars to make these corrupt representatives have that elite lifestyle.

It was only because of a naive trust in their representatives that this happened.  

I am seeing people wake up from a system that never served their interests and desperately looking for someone who will.

If Trump is elected again, it is the fault of the corruption that is rampant in the US government that does not serve the interest of Main Street.

No more, no less.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.65  seeder  evilone  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.58    7 months ago
There was not a candidate nominated that I would support for any reason so I did not cast a vote for POTUS in 2016 or 2020.  It is shaping up to be the same in 2024 unless the Democrats throw Biden to the curb and finds someone I can support under the age of 50.

The electoral process is more than simply voting. Quitting the process and then complaining about the results will not improve the results. If you don't like your options it's on you to work to find and work to promote options you can vote for. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.66  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.63    7 months ago
I see a profound difference between Trump and these men.   

And you have one vote to use as you please for anyone you want to support for whatever reason - most likely because their platform will reward your economic interests.

Other people will do the same.

Honestly, this is like watching a sporting event where I know the rules, the names of the players and get to listen to the crowd screaming the other side is lying, cheating, dirty sons-of-bitches.  Morals/ethics do not matter as long as their team wins and they get their share of the loot.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.67  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.64    7 months ago
I am just evaluating why there is support for Trump.

I think I understand why Trump had support in 2016.   Many people thought he was an outsider and a tough guy who would drain the swamp.  

It should be clear now that Trump is far worse than any ugly creatures in the swamp.    It should also be clear that there are plenty of GOP members who could effect the same basic policies as Trump did since those were all GOP policies.

There is no need for Trump and there is an extremely strong case for why he should never be allowed access to public power again (much less the presidency).

If Trump is elected again, it is the fault of the corruption that is rampant in the US government that does not serve the interest of Main Street.

Well the way I see things, the GOP electorate has the power to nominate Nikki Haley (or someone else) and by doing so they will get a far better human being as their nominee and one who is perfectly capable of pursuing GOP core policies.

With Trump, they are guaranteed to get a vindictive, miserable human being who has demonstrated repeatedly that he will throw the CotUS and the nation under the bus just to satisfy his ego.

The GOP electorate has the power to NOT nominate Trump.   So if they want to reduce the rampant corruption in the US government, one thought is to NOT nominate a serial, proven, narcissist, lying con-man.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.68  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.66    7 months ago
And you have one vote to use as you please for anyone you want to support for whatever reason - most likely because their platform will reward your economic interests.

Why do you presume that???   Does 'you' / 'your' refer to me or are you speaking as 'one' / 'ones'?

Morals/ethics do not matter as long as their team wins and they get their share of the loot.

I agree, but I get a sense that you are applying that to me.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.69  mocowgirl  replied to  evilone @2.1.65    7 months ago
The electoral process is more than simply voting. Quitting the process and then complaining about the results will not improve the results. If you don't like your options it's on you to work to find and work to promote options you can vote for. 

It would require a level of interaction with people that I would not put myself through for any reason because it would be detrimental to my mental and physical health.

I have spent the majority of my life working with a limited number of men on farms and ranches.

Working in an office was a living Hell because of being surrounded by hundreds of people chatting for 9 hours a day.  The work was okay, but I have always preferred working with livestock.  Much of it was life or death for the animal if I failed to properly evaluate their health or made the wrong decision.  I had access to restricted drugs from the vet when drugs at the farm store were ineffective.

About the only interaction I have with people these days is on this website.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
2.1.70  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.69    7 months ago
I have spent the majority of my life working with a limited number of men on farms and ranches.

I assume that animals are more predictable and reasonable than the men you met.

About the only interaction I have with people these days is on this website.

Well that’s a distorted view of humankind for sure.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.71  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.68    7 months ago
Why do you presume that???   Does 'you' / 'your' refer to me or are you speaking as 'one' / 'ones'?
Morals/ethics do not matter as long as their team wins and they get their share of the loot.
I agree, but I get a sense that you are applying that to me.

I do presume that you vote your own interests.  Are you stating that you do not vote your own economic interests?

I am not applying (or implying) that you do not have morals or ethics.

I may be guilty of thinking that we have interacted enough about things like cognitive bias and other wired human behavior that I do not fully explain how my understanding of human behavior makes this system of government possible in the first place.  

I think in terms of improving systems that I have to use or catch my interes.

I am thinking in terms of identifying and addressing flaws in the current system so it works better than it is currently.

I am not intending to demean you or anyone else on a personal level.

I sincerely apologize.

This is one of the reasons I rarely attempt to communicate with many people.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.72  mocowgirl  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.70    7 months ago
Well that’s a distorted view of humankind for sure.

I was raised in and still live in the Bible Belt.  

At least, there are people on this website that are not religious zealots trying to put me in my place as a "good" woman.

As a military wife from 1976-1984, I lived in southern California, north of Memphis, TN, and Kaneohe, Hawaii.  Every society had its charm and its drawbacks.  

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.73  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.67    7 months ago

I am not disagreeing that the GOP electorate has other choices.

I am just stating that there is a reason they will go with the person who delivered what no one else has for them.

I am communicating on my level of understanding the reasons why people support Trump because I kind of know people who support Trump.  I live in an area where a lot of people support Trump.  I am not friends with any of them - this includes my husband's entire family and probably most of my family that I do not speak to.

On a personal note, I feel the same way about the people who would not support any other candidate except Hillary Clinton.  I don't understand what they see in her.  

This is why I am not waging into partisan politics on who is a less corrupt candidate for political office.  I know I can be just as biased as any other human and have issues with identifying and addressing my own biases.  My job is work on myself, not other people.  

When a party finally decides on their candidate, then I may, or may not, research and discuss the pros and cons of their history and their platform.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.1.74  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.5    7 months ago

Are you against having a vote to expel him (clearly within the power of the House to expel him)?   If so, why?

Expel him for simply being accused?  It doesn't work that way
 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.1.75  mocowgirl  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.70    7 months ago
I assume that animals are more predictable and reasonable than the men you met.

Some men are reasonable, some are not.  Some animals are predictable, and some are not.

Breeding and society can give beneficial clues on what I would likely be dealing with if I was smart enough to recognize it.

Experience is a cruel teacher, but a fool with learn from none other.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.76  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @2.1.71    7 months ago
I do presume that you vote your own interests.  Are you stating that you do not vote your own economic interests?

I vote based a number of factors.   The interests of my friends and family are certainly a key factor but frankly the presidential vote does not have much short-term impact on my local interests.   In 2024, I am voting more for what is in the best interest of our nation.   So it is more long-term.   In particular, I think it is critical that the USA hold Trump accountable for his Big Lie campaign.   The precedent he set is horrible and that precedent as I am sure you see enables others to do similarly (not necessarily to Trump's degree of course).

Specifically though, my vote in 2024 has almost nothing to do with my own economic interests.

I think in terms of improving systems that I have to use or catch my interes.

Then we are approaching this in a similar fashion.

The nation will survive no matter who is PotUS.   But we continue on what I consider to be a dangerous path.   When politicians are free to lie with the full expectation that sufficient (large enough to make a difference) numbers in the electorate will buy whatever horseshit they spew, that is the fodder for demagogues and worse.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.77  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.74    7 months ago
Expel him for simply being accused?  It doesn't work that way

No, Greg, you expel based on the evidence.    

Let me guess, your next post will deny that their is evidence sufficient for the House to consider expulsion.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.78  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.74    7 months ago

I am waiting for someone clamoring for Santos' ouster to start demanding the same for Menendez.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.79  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.78    7 months ago

Looks like Menendez should be ousted too if what we are hearing is true.     However, the evidence against Santos is substantially stronger ... especially since he admitted many of his misdeeds.

If you were a member of the House, would you vote to expel Santos?   (I would.)

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.2  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @2    7 months ago
What took them so long?   Was this not obvious immediately after he was elected?

I decided to turn to Google to answer your question.

The answer turned out to be far more interesting and time consuming than I anticipated.  If just a fraction of the accusations result in a thorough investigation and then deserve judgement, we really need a system to be more vigilant in vetting our political candidates.

There is a lot of information and links to further research at the link below.

GovTrack.us - Legislator Misconduct Database

Legislator Misconduct Database

This page lists 492 instances of alleged and actual misconduct by legislators in the United States Congress from 1789 to the present.

The database below has been collected from public information about congressional investigations, criminal convictions, censures by and expulsions from Congress, and more, see the sidebar. The list is updated as new information becomes available.

An allegation of misconduct listed on this page   does not imply guilt , unless it is followed by an official determiniation of guilt. Conversely, the absence of a determination of guilt   does not imply innocence   because congressional investigative bodies are political, not judicial.
 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2.2.1  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2    7 months ago

Wiki gave me an easy list to review and more information about how charges are even allowed.

Is it really surprising that criminals seek and are successfully elected to the highest levels of a country's government?

List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses - Wikipedia

This list only includes federal officials convicted of certain select corruption crimes. For a more complete list see:   List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes   and   List of federal political scandals in the United States .

Dozens of high-level United States   federal   officials have been convicted of   public corruption offenses   for conduct while in office. These officials have been convicted under two types of statutes. The first type are also applicable to corrupt   state   and   local   officials: [1]   the   mail and wire fraud   statutes (enacted 1872), including the   honest services fraud   provision, [2]   the   Hobbs Act   (enacted 1934), [3]   the   Travel Act   (enacted 1961), [4]   and the   Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act   (RICO) (enacted 1970). [1] [5]   In addition, federal officials are subject to the federal bribery, graft, and conflict-of-interest crimes contained in   Title 18 , Chapter 11 of the   United States Code , 18 U.S.C. §§ 201–227, which do not apply to state and local officials. [1]   Most notably, § 201(b) prohibits the receipt of bribes, and § 201(c) prohibits the receipt of unlawful gratuities, by federal public officials. Lesser used statutes include conspiracy to defraud the United States (enacted 1867) [6]   and the   Foreign Corrupt Practices Act   (FCPA) (enacted 1977). [7]

Where the defendant is a member of the   United States Congress , the   Speech or Debate Clause   of   Article One of the United States Constitution —providing that: "[F]or any Speech or Debate in either House, [Senators or Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place" [8] —limits the acts which may be charged and the evidence that may be introduced.
 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2.3  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @2    7 months ago
What took them so long?   Was this not obvious immediately after he was elected?

One reason he's still around: the party divide in the House is very close-- Republicans need every vote they can get. Especially now.

People have different motives, but i think that's one reason some Republicans don't want to get rid of him now. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @2.3    7 months ago
People have different motives, but i think that's one reason some Republicans don't want to get rid of him now. 

Well, now Republicans have no room to talk.

Neither do Democrats.

Let the justice system work to convict all those necessary.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3  Kavika     7 months ago

Santos made a comment today that he will not seek re-election in 2024.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1  seeder  evilone  replied to  Kavika @3    7 months ago

I saw that. Not that he has much choice at this point.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
3.2  Krishna  replied to  Kavika @3    7 months ago
Santos made a comment today that he will not seek re-election in 2024.

In recent times, if memory serves, that is a wealthy (and somewhat liberal) suburban district. . I seem to remember it being on the South shore of Long Island and I just googled it-- its been moved north which is a fairly wealthy area.

I haven't followed the politics of NY3 for some time, But I think when Santos is out in the next election there's a good chance they will elect a Democrat.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
3.2.1  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @3.2    7 months ago
I haven't followed the politics of NY3 for some time, But I think when Santos is out in the next election there's a good chance they will elect a Democrat.

P.S; I recently heard an interesting story on the news. Many people feel that many Republicans nationwide have mixed feelings-- many want him out,

But some feel he should stay-- because the Party breakdown in The House is so tight.

Apparently several elected Republicans in that area want him out-- because his being there might give some local voters bad feelings about the Republican party as a whole. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
3.2.2  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @3.2    7 months ago
I haven't followed the politics of NY3 for some time, But I think when Santos is out in the next election there's a good chance they will elect a Democrat.

I just googled it. I found this to be interesting -- if you start at, say, the 1950s and scroll down its interesting how the party of the representatives keep flipping back and forth between Democrats and Republicans in that district.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4  Tacos!    7 months ago
his trial is set for September 2024

I think a number of members may not vote to expel him until he his convicted of something. Makes me wonder why they even have an ethics committee.

So, probably by the time any of this mess is settled, he won’t even be in Congress.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @4    7 months ago

Hmmm....is it different if you are a Democrat?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    7 months ago

I wouldn't know.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.2  seeder  evilone  replied to  Tacos! @4    7 months ago
Makes me wonder why they even have an ethics committee.

I'm not sure it's ever been very effective. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @4.2    7 months ago
I'm not sure it's ever been very effective. 

Senator Menendez can vouch for the effectiveness of ethics committees.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.2.2  seeder  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.1    7 months ago

This is not about Medendez or the Senate. Last warning to stay on topic.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.2.3  charger 383  replied to  evilone @4.2.2    7 months ago

Seeder gave warning about 4.2.1 so off topic flag by another member was dismissed, explained by charger 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
4.2.4  Krishna  replied to  evilone @4.2    7 months ago
Makes me wonder why they even have an ethics committee.
I'm not sure it's ever been very effective. 

And what about the Supreme Court-- Don't they have an ethics committee?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.3  Snuffy  replied to  Tacos! @4    7 months ago

I read earlier that Rep. Michael Guest plans to file a motion to expel Santos on the Friday session.  But that it wouldn't get acted on until the House is back in session after the Thanksgiving break. I think the Republicans will have a rather hard time with this decision as their margin in the House is already so thin and to remove one more...  Will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.3.1  seeder  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @4.3    7 months ago
Will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

It will be since they keep trying to impeach Mayorkas on policy and Biden on suspicion of crimes keeping Santos around for short term political gain will only help Democrats in the election, but dumping him helps Democrats during voting. I'm glad I'm not in politics... 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
4.4  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @4    7 months ago
I think a number of members may not vote to expel him until he his convicted of something.

I winder if some Republicans who are uncertain about whether or not to vote for Trump may be having similar thoughts?

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5  George    7 months ago

Last time this came up the cowards punted it to the ethics committee, the Speaker needs to man up and hold a up or down vote on this douchebag.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6  Texan1211    7 months ago

Ok, everyone can calm down now.

The head of the House Ethics Committee has filed a resolution to expel Santos.

[removed,]

 
 

Who is online



34 visitors