George Santos—Is That Really His Name?

[thoughtful]

Today was a day of many errands, and I was in line at the drive-through bank machine, window already open, when I heard that Santos had been arrested. I actually yelled "Whoo hoo!" before I could stop myself.

I hope the person in the car in front of me wasn't too startled.

[GreyhoundFan]

With Rs, it’s always a “witch hunt”.  I want to know the three anonymous sources who paid his $500k bond.

 

[Dandruff]

Pity that Santos has been bailed out.  I'd like to see his trail of $$s (campaign and otherwise) tracked to its sources - who are his backers, exactly?  And will he try to push the case to the SC so Clarence Thomas can weigh in?

My guess is that McCarthy will fight hard to keep Santos in Congress.  If so, I hope it costs him enough to cause genuine regret.

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[Dandruff]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

 

If he flips, it'll be interesting to see who he flips on.  Might shed some light on who in Congress may have a shared owner.

[GreyhoundFan]

Only the best people…

[GreyhoundFan]

I’m sure the GQP won’t do the right thing. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Gee, he doesn’t listen. Sounds like a typical rethuglikan. 

 

 

[Alisamer]

I think the problem with Santos is that he is such an inveterate liar that even on the stand nothing he says can be trusted. If he "flips" and starts telling things about his fellow republicans, no one will know if any of it is the truth, since he seems literally incapable of telling the truth. 

He's going to be the subject of a fascinating documentary sooner or later, and probably there'll be a movie made of his story some day. He's like a low-rent less skilled Frank Abagnale, that dude who claimed to be a doctor and an airline pilot when he was neither. But right now, he's just a compulsive liar. I have no idea how he managed to get elected. 

[GreyhoundFan]

If George isn't happy, he could resign and leave. I don't think many tears would be shed.

[Dandruff]

7 hours ago, Alisamer said:

I have no idea how he managed to get elected.

t was a close race for the House so he had lots of backing and he told enough undecided voters what they wanted to hear.

[Alisamer]

14 hours ago, Dandruff said:

t was a close race for the House so he had lots of backing and he told enough undecided voters what they wanted to hear.

Yeah, I think what I was meaning really was "how can such a pathological liar get elected in the first place?"

Which, I mean yeah, Trump managed. Somehow.

But I feel like now more than ever we need some sort of basic vetting for people running for public office. I know that opens up the possibility of racism and other discrimination, but I still feel like we are at a point where that's necessary. Just something minimal, like being qualified for the security clearance the job you're running for would normally come with. If you can't qualify for the security clearance, you are not a good fit for the job, IMO. 

I feel like there is literally more vetting required for a teen to get their first job than to run for office. 

[fraurosena]

18 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

I know that opens up the possibility of racism and other discrimination

In theory, if the vetting process is set up properly and honestly and the only thing a person is vetted on is their basic knowledge (reading, writing, Constitution, general laws and regulations pertaining to the office in question, etc) and their ability to get a security clearance (at the level necessary for the office they're running for) then I don't think that racism or other discrimination could factor in, but it would separate the chaff from the wheat better than doing nothing. 

Edited May 19, 2023 by fraurosena
It's wheat in English, as opposed to corn in Dutch.

[Alisamer]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

In theory, if the vetting process is set up properly and honestly and the only thing a person is vetted on is their basic knowledge (reading, writing, Constitution, general laws and regulations pertaining to the office in question, etc) and their ability to get a security clearance (at the level necessary for the office they're running for) then I don't think that racism or other discrimination could factor in, but it would separate the chaff from the wheat better than doing nothing. 

Yeah, I really would LIKE there to be some basic competency required for public office, at least on the federal level. But I know how things are here, and how if left to the states to decide how to evaluate people, there'll be issues. Historically when there were competency requirements for voting the questions were written in such a way that there were no clear right or wrong answers, allowing the individual grading the test to swing it however they wanted (which was to allow white men to vote, and keep black men from voting).

But federal security clearance I believe already has a set procedure and set requirements, so wouldn't require creation of any new testing, just perhaps a couple extra people working in that office. It seems to me, looking in from outside, that it would be fairly simple to use existing procedures to check security clearances, just as is done for many federal employees.

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, Alisamer said:

But federal security clearance I believe already has a set procedure and set requirements, so wouldn't require creation of any new testing, just perhaps a couple extra people working in that office. It seems to me, looking in from outside, that it would be fairly simple to use existing procedures to check security clearances, just as is done for many federal employees.

Indeed, but are the security clearance procedures done before an election, or after a candidate has already won? Because I would propose doing them beforehand so that a potential candidate is immediately disqualified from even running for office.

[Dandruff]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Indeed, but are the security clearance procedures done before an election, or after a candidate has already won? Because I would propose doing them beforehand so that a potential candidate is immediately disqualified from even running for office.

I believe this would also discourage potential candidates from even entering the vetting process without having a high expectation of passing it, since a fail would look really bad.

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Lol

 

[thoughtful]

On 5/30/2023 at 12:24 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

 

Watching this video, I was shocked, absolutely stunned, to find out that

Spoiler

Santos has a friend.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I can't wait to find out who paid:

 

[CTRLZero]

3 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I can't wait to find out who paid:

Same here.  I want to know who Santos owes favors to.  😎 

[GreyhoundFan]

Still dragging his high heels:

 

[formergothardite]

23 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Still dragging his high heels:

 

So is he offering to sit in jail rather than let people know who posted his bond?

[CTRLZero]

12 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

So is he offering to sit in jail rather than let people know who posted his bond?

That’s what it sounds like.  I say let him make this noble act on behalf of the mobster suretor.

Edited June 5, 2023 by CTRLZero
PS, I still want to know who it is, though.

[Dandruff]

3 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

So is he offering to sit in jail rather than let people know who posted his bond?

This is George Santos, so maybe.

Given the great distress caused by him being able to slither into Congress, I believe the identity of one willing to cough up 500K for his freedom should be immediately disclosed.