Republican Congressman Elect George Santos is a Complete Fraud - Trump VP Running Mate?

George Santos.

Fake education. Fake employment. Fake charity. Check fraud. Evictions for rent non-payment.

Linky 1

Linky 2

Do you agree this guy would make a perfect running mate for Trump?

Or would they be a cute couple in matching orange prison jump suits?

But to be fair, the real question I have with this thread is what is so shit about US politics that both the political parties don't seem to have any screening or control over grifters?

Linky 3 - Democrat example

Also reminds me of the avowed Nazi guy that runs for the Republicans all the time in Illinois? (Not sure if that is the correct location). That's a bit different though since he is honest about being a Nazi.

So why are your political parties so inept at screening candidates?

@SUD123456: That reads like Gillum's activity occurred during or after his run for office. If that's the case, is it a screening issue?

@mattbbpl: I dunno, I just searched for a Democrat example for fairness. However, I read that these things came to light prior to the 2018 Governor election and yet he still stood as the candidate.

In Canada you may be presumed innocent...but typically you would be replaced as the candidate by the party in that situation. Generally the parties have considerable ability to axe you, if the party leader and majority of executive board decide it is necessary. It happens occasionally with both candidates (dropped) and elected members (forced out of the party and then they become independents).

Part of the British parliamentary system/party autocracy. All hail the party leader. On the other hand, it is also fairly easy to dump the leader so it cuts both ways.

@SUD123456: I ask because I don't really know the party mechanisms well, but it seems to me that the issues for both parties, at least "recently" in the last couple decades, are fundamentally different.

Hmm it's either this guy or Herschel Walker

@SUD123456: Democrats cheered the life of Senator Byrd, who was a grand wizard goof of the KKK. BIden spent years fighting against integration of the schools. In the 1990s, Feinstein said the biggest thread to the United States was illegal immigrants

Why do Democrats keep praising and promoting people with such racist pasts?

People can change. It's not unheard of that education and experience change views that were held. It's actually those that cannot learn and grow that are a problem.

I don't really know anyone cheering for Byrd though.

I watched his retirement party with cheers and hugs by all the leaders of the party, including Hillary. The only one I remember being absent was Obama (which is understandable).

You folks should get your story straight - the left routinely tries to "cancel" people for actions years ago, but always give a pass if it's "their guy". Case in point - Biden is a leftist hero and the left tried to cancel Metallica.

So you're generalizing the majority of Americans over Congress celebrating a retirement. From what I recall he denounced his prior actions. As I said people can grow and what they did can be come less important over what they have done to atone.

@LJS9502_basic: I am saying there was no outrage over Byrd, and Bidrn is POTUS.

You're just the ever-constant Democrat apologist, aren't ya? LOL. Biden and Pelosi could eat a live baby on the floor of the House, and you'd probably say "they taste like chicken and that baby had it coming!!!"

You seem to only have whataboutism. Sad!

1. Why do you Republicans keep praising and promoting people with such a racist present?

2. Thread derailment attempt detected.

@zaryia: Clearly, not just a Republican issue.

Thanks for playing.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-byrd-eulogy-biden-kkk-grand/fact-checkrobert-byrdeulogized-by-joe-bidenat-funeralwas-notkkkgrandwizard-idUSKBN26S2EE

You're not helping your case that I should believe a word you say.

Also the previous pope was in the Hitler Youth. Does that mean I should view the Catholic Church as an extension of far right extremism?

Back on topic. A key difference between countries is the concentration vs diffusion of power in a singular role. A second difference is the grassroots power to trigger a leader confidence review.

Canada - The party leader is formally elected by the party grassroots, which at the Federal level means nationwide party members. This is for the actual control of the party, the machinery so to speak, which includes vetting/approval of all party candidates. Shit candidates reflect badly on the party leader. If the party wins, the leader becomes Prime Minister and wields both Executive power (appointing cabinet ministers) and Legislative power (tow the party line or be banished to the back benches or even turfed from the party). In a general election, the party Leader only needs to win his/her local riding and is not voted on nationwide. It is tremendous concentration of power in one person. However, it also means that person takes the blame for pretty much everything...like criminal candidates. The party grassroots also has power as each party has mechanisms to trigger a review of the party leader.

US - The party leader is a bureaucrat who runs the machinery...RNC/DNC chair. That individual is not personally vested in all of the party candidates. They also have little or no direct policy control. Primaries ultimately select candidates for the POTUS/Executive role. The Executive and Legislative roles are separated and the former has little direct control over the latter, including candidates and their behavior, or the behavior of sitting members of congress. This is exacerbated by staggered timelines for electing portions of congress every 2yrs resulting in continuous election mode.

One system concentrates great power in an individual person, but it also makes that person accountable for everyone else's shit behavior. The system also makes it easier to get things done....for better or worse. And rivals can topple the leader via the grass roots members or even just the elected members...which need not be directly related to an election.

The other system diffuses power amongst multiple roles that compete with each other. This combined with the election timings pretty much guarantees that little to nothing gets done 1/3 to 1/2 of the time. There is no role that is actually vested in candidates and their selection, nor the actual behavior of elected members.

Personally, I believe the US system is designed to fail because the people who designed it lived in a paradigm that bears no semblance to reality in the modern world.

In short, every system has shit candidates at times but the US system with all its checks and balances actually has no checks and balances on shit candidates or shit behavior of elected members except via an election. Sadly, that generally doesn't work because of polarization and the attitude of 'my shit candidate is at least not your candidate'.

Thus, I believe you are fcuked for the long haul. Good luck with that.

@jetpower3: First off, I clearly made up his title - I just knew he recruited for the Klan. Second, Biden was against bussing.

But, kudos for actually trying to learn something. I always love when the lefties try and fact-check everything I type.

Does it really make you feel better that he was a "goofball exalted cyclops" (Or whatever) instead of "grand wizard poobah"?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/06/robert-byrd-was-an-exalted-cyclops-in-the-ku-klux-klan-what-does-that-mean.html

Byrd and Biden had a choice, the Pope did not. That's the difference.

Try harder.

Ouch. 😂

I think both parties are big tents (they have to be, we are a two-party system essentially), and each party will attract their fair share of vermin.

The problem right now is the GOP has been hijacked by a very grift-prone group of extremists and people seeking to take advantage of those people will more often than want to run under the GOP than the Democrats.

Enter Trump, Steve Bannon, Alex Jones...and now George Santos.

Haha, beat me to it.

Your ass got called out and you floundered and failed🤣 Byrd is dead and changed his stances, and 1990 was over three decades ago.

Anyway...

What's your opinion on Santos and the GOP being OK with guys like this?

@mrbojangles25: My point was that there are bad apples on both sides of the aisle.

Given the left's propensity to dig up things people have said and done years earlier, your apologist stance is... comical. I see how you just glossed over Bidrn and his anti-integration stances early on in his career.

Yet another leftist coming out of the woodwork to try and make sure this forum is a safe space for liberalism. How nice.

Try harder.

True, but you just happened to pick the worst example. Guess which side the KKK currently is on and endorses. In fact, most hate groups in US are in conservative counties for a reason. Racial gerrymandering is mostly from Republicans. It's very one sided now.

And it's all still deflection from the undefendable OP.

Well, yes. Obviously. They're polticians, that line of work doesn't exactly attract the best people.

And? Do you have anything to contribute to the topic or are you just deflecting?

It might help to re-read the original posting and maybe discuss that.

Here, I'll even quote it for you!

A few days later, he admitted that he lied about his education, his work background, and his ethnicity.

He also gave us this facepalm-worthy gem:

“I never claimed to be Jewish, I am Catholic. Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background I said I was ‘Jew-ish’.”

Still, he honestly comes off as more educated than your average Republican politician.

“I never claimed to be Jewish, I am Catholic. Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background I said I was ‘Jew-ish’.”

That's genuinely funny.

That's all a right of passage for being a member of the GOP.

Right? The man should quit politics and write for Larry David's next show.

What an absolute twat this guy is. Claims the discussion of his involvement with firms such as "Goldman Sachs" would go "way over the heads of Americans".

In short, he thinks Americans are too stupid to catch on to his lies. If ever any politician needed the boot, it's this guy.

Pretty much, throw the book at this guy and make an example out of him.

i oddly agree with stevo.

I think he could get in trouble long term. It was laid out on news that paints picture his business was a front to receive donations to his campaign that exceed the the legal campaign contributions and that his business was used as a front to skirt around those restrictions. There will likely be scrutiny of the supposed goods and services he provided, contracts for what, and who paid for them.

The situation of lying about his background is mostly just dealing with the shame of it. But looks like potentially violating campaign finance laws could land him in hit water.

That aside it's a big head-scratcher as to why there wasn't any opposition research during the election that should have either scrutinized his phony deals and potentially his business working as a front to skirt campaign finance laws.

“I never claimed to be Jewish, I am Catholic. Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background I said I was ‘Jew-ish’.”

I don’t know, I almost have to respect such a degree of attempted weaselry, simply due to the virtue of its cleverness.

If anything, it gave me a good laugh which counts for something.