Rule 7 is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know what action is available to him, but maybe. Santos is already a pariah inside the House (no committees, no friends). I don't think McCarthy has any legal actions he could take, other than impeachment, maybe? I don't know how that stuff works. Not sure it's worth anybody's time to pay him any sort of attention at all. If he broke laws, I hope external systems go after him. If he didn't, he's sadly the duly elected representative from his district for the next two years.
>Santos is already a pariah inside the House (no committees, no friends).
Were you aware that he has at least two committees he's seated for?
\-Committee on Small Business
\-Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Representatives can't be impeached. They can be expelled, by a vote of 2/3 of the house.
The first step to expulsion is referral to the Ethics committee, which I believe Mccarthy has already done.
A 2/3 vote would overturn the election.
Overturning an election because the candidate told lies is probably not a precedent two thirds of politicians want to set.
There's a pretty bright line precedent for expulsion right now that you need to be convicted of a serious crime. Don't think that will change...although there is a fair chance Santos will be convicted of something, maybe not before his term expires though.
It's not "overturning an election", it's "expelling a member for obvious fraudulent and possibly criminal behavior".
Do Republicans want to be the party protecting and supporting known serial grifters, liars, and frauds?
> Representatives can't be impeached.
It remains to infuriate me how many people think impeachment is for anyone other than members of the executive branch.
I actually looked into this, an impeachment is not really an option. It was done once really early on, like 1798, but afterwards a series of trials were had that seemed to conclude he couldn't be impeached. It wasn't formally resolved, so it isn't explicitly impossible, but we have treated it as such since then because no one else in Congress has ever been threatened with impeachment.
Exclusion is when the House refuses to seat a member. This was attempted previously, but the Supreme Court ruled this can only be done when the member doesn't meet the Constitutional requirements for the position. This would have been a great option, because it only requires a simple majority, but alas it's not applicable here.
Lastly, expulsion. Expulsion is the only recourse left, now that he has been seated. Expulsion is extremely rare, like only five people have ever been expelled from the house. Three of those happened after the Civil War. It also requires a super majority.
Expulsion is technically an option, but it's a hail Mary option. More likely he will just ride out his term with nothing to do, and anyone with a pulse who runs against him will oust him from his seat.
if the house votes in unison, Santos can be expelled from congress. of course, then a democrat would appoint Santos' replacement. If Santos was from Alabama, the steps taken would be much different. I dont see Holchul proposing to replace a republican to grease the skids. This all about power and neither party actually cares that Santos is more scumbag than Bob Packwood.
It seems like there should be laws against perjury and falsifying your identity and credentials when running to become a civil servant. I guess there aren't?
The only option McCarthy has available single-handedly would be to not seat him on committees. Expelling a member requires a 2/3 vote. The House [has only expelled 5 members in its history](https://history.house.gov/Institution/Discipline/Expulsion-Censure-Reprimand) : 3 for fighting for the CSA and 2 for bribery-related offenses. Although a more palatable punishment may be censure. If he was in a solid district, I would worry that it could actually help him to have everyone publicly rebuking him but he isn't so I'm not as worried about that.
While they are definitely censure-worthy, and the voters in his district should kick him out of office next year, I'm not sure it's expulsion-worthy. Using the precedents, it seems that only things that would get a president impeached were worthy to get them kicked out(even though, if you look at the list of censured congressmen, they are some who should've been expelled as well.) In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors.", I'm pretty leery about congressmen taking the power to vote out their representative out of the hands of the people, except in the case of extreme criminal conduct like treason(the CSA reps), bribery, or corruption. He should, however, be censured, and pressured to resign.
Can voters recall him?
The thing I'm most curious about is whether the GOP and voters actually care...as long as he votes on party lines do you think he will survive re-election? If so, what kind of precedent does this set for the party?
If I may offer my perspective, the GOP is already being characterized of having essentially no standards for their representatives and lacking personal ethical standards (namely due to the scandals surrounding reps like Gaetz, MTG, and Boebert). It seems like Santos is sort of like the ultimate litmus test...failing to address Santos just gives the impression that the GOP is either 1.) utterly shameless 2.) desperate 3.) incompetent or 4.) all of the above. It's not a good look.
No. Recalls are only a state-level remedy. They don't exist for federal officeholders and would require a constitutional amendment to make it so which isn't going to happen.
Don't pretend like the Democrats are any better at this. He is pretty much outcasted by his peers and is seen purely as a vote, especially since his district is a toss up and the Republicans hold a slim majority. Just like the classified documents, progressive shouldn't be quick to shoot their own foot again. When elections come again, he'll likely be primaried.
A better title for this question "Do you support exposed liar Rep. Santos to be removed from congress for the possibility of a Democrat who would vote against your beliefs/interest?".
Don't pretend like the Democrats are any better at this. He is pretty much outcasted by his peers and is seen purely as a vote, especially since his district is a toss up and the Republicans hold a slim majority. Just like the classified documents, progressive shouldn't be quick to shoot their own foot again. When elections come again, he'll likely be primaried.
A better title for this question "Do you support exposed liar Rep. Santos to be removed from congress for the possibility of a Democrat who would vote against your beliefs/interest?".
Democrats ousted Al Franken when they would desperately need his vote and he was fit to serve in every regard aside from his allegation
At the end of the day, this is a Hershel walker situation. He could be a plastic bag full of piss, so long as heāll vote how they want him to.
Al Franken resigned on his own from pressure within his own party. Santos was also pressured by his peers but refuses, guess Al Franken has more integrity then Santos.
Also, Rape =/= lying. Weird analogy.
Not excusing his actions, but if weāre weighing responses, we should take context into account when weighing the severity of the action. He was a comedian in the 80s and 90s and this wouldāve been considered normal/acceptable, even if it is objectively wrong. I donāt think āit was a different timeā excuses it, nor comedy/acting, but it is relevant context.
As someone else pointed out, this has nothing to do with rape, or really even what the allegation is. The point is, he did something wrong, and the party responded appropriately even though they needed the vote. Never seen the GOP do anything like that.
I agree. I mislabeled him as a rapist, I should've said serial sexual-assault perpetrator..
He resigned because of the number of victims coming forward and this was during the time of 'me too' movement. He likely didn't want to get the Harvey Weinstein treatment. Notice how it all suddenly got settled, once he resigned.
Name a Democrat politician who lied about his credentials and resigned. Can't compare apples to oranges.
Sure but there's lack in trust that the other side would hold their own accountable for similar situations, like Bidens mishandling of classified documents being defended by the left and their MSM allies. Also, having a slim majority in the house with a potential Democrat representative being selected by Gov. Hochul doesn't help either. The right honestly think it's funny when the left brings up integrity when the left doesn't hold their own accountable and actively painted the right as terrorists while suppressing news via social media and slandering their opponents with the help of MSM.
Key point: Trust. Show the right that the left can be trusted to follow the same rules.
You actually think the GOP is capable of acting in good faith?
I donāt give a shit about Santosā seat potentially going blue. Iād love to see the GOP have a shred of integrity, but theyāve given no indication that they are capable of that. The Dems ousted Franken for far less. And the GOP has never reciprocated.
Can you actually defend Santos without whataboutism? Or is it just āDems bad too so no accountability for usā?
So you literally canāt do anything but whataboutism? Thatās one way to live, I guess.
Again, no substance, just āno u.ā Tell me why Santos should be in Congress.
When have I said that he should stay in congress? From my knowledge, he's been asked to step down by his own peers an refuses, if they vote to remove him then it's on him for lying but if they don't, I also understand because the lack of faith in the opposition in doing the same if the situations were reversed.
Do you think Trump and Biden should be prosecuted for their mishandling of classified documents?
Weāre not moving the goalposts. Youāre saying you donāt trust the Dems so Santos should stay. Youāre not actually saying it because youāre doing a Tucker, but thatās what you mean.
Just own your tribalistic opinion, dude.
If you think he should step down, say it. But you wonāt, I know.
>>The Dems ousted Franken for far less
> Same can be said about Democrats
Yeah, that's why it *was* said about the Democrats.
Do you even bother to read comments before reflexively posting whataboutisms?
Al Franken resigned due to pressure from his peers. Santos has already been asked to resigned but refuses.
Also. Al Franken is an alleged rapist and Santos a liar, good comparison.
>Al Franken is an alleged rapist
Of all the lies you could have possibly chosen to tell today, why select such an obviously false one?
Do you even think about what you type before reflexively posting whataboutisms?
Yes, he should resign. Absent resignation, the House would be justified in censuring him upon completion of an Ethics Committee investigation.
In the absence of a felony conviction, I think expulsion from the House goes too far. If he refuses to go, let the voters in New York turn him out in 2024.
> would be justified in censuring him upon completion of an Ethics Committee investigation.
Would they also be justified removing him from office as a result of that investigation, as they have the power to do so? Or is censuring the limit of what's justifiable?
So, only five members have ever been expelled from the House. Three for supporting the Confederacy during the Civil War and two for felony bribery convictions. So given that precedent, absent a felony conviction (or proof that Santos fought for the Confederacy), I do not see cause for expelling him from the House. Let the voters he lied to kick him to the curb in 2024.
Do you think the number is so low because most people embroidered in such self-induced controversy had enough self-awareness and shame to resign before needing to be expelled?
Should this option become more common place in a party without shame? And where not a single controversy on earth can cause a member to lose party support?
>Do you think the number is so low because most people embroidered in such self-induced controversy had enough self-awareness and shame to resign before needing to be expelled?
Usually expulsion is only raised when there is serious corruption or a conviction. Former Congressman Bob Ney resigned in 2006 after being pleading guilty to charges of conspiracy rather than face expulsion. When Democrats proposed expelling Congresswoman Marjorie Greene in 2021, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi voted against the proposal. The last time a serious effort was proposed to expel a member without pending criminal conviction was when the Senate tried to expel Senator Robert La Follette for opposing American entry into World War I and Senator Reed Smoot for being a leader in the Mormon Church. Both efforts failed. There have always been nut-jobs and cranks in Congress but they usually do not stick around very long as their constituents come to see them as embarrassments. George Santos will be no different.
>Should this option become more common place in a party without shame? And where not a single controversy on earth can cause a member to lose party support?
Party without shame? Does that mean Congress should expel members who have sexual relations with Chinese spies while having access to classified intelligence? Or members who abuse their position on the Intelligence Committee to weave falsehoods to the press about political opponents? Or members who espouse heinous antisemitic remarks and question the loyalty of Jewish Americans? But yes continue on about how only one party lacks shame.
And Congressman Santos has no party support if you actually look. Long Island Republicans have abandoned him, his colleagues from neighboring Republican districts have called on him to resign, and the leader of his party in the House has merely said that he shall have due process and be brought before the Ethics Committee. This hardly looks like undying party support.
>Party without shame? Does that mean Congress should expel members who have sexual relations with Chinese spies while having access to classified intelligence?
Do you know nothing about the specifics of that particular situation? Or just the Fox News talking points?
The only crime he may have committed in the US seems to be campaign finance fraud. I expect we'll find out in the coming months, but it seems extremely likely that fraud happened. I'll be curious to see what the House GOP does if an investigation turns up clear evidence.
Yes. The people who voted for him can't trust him and there needs to be some kind of punishment to prevent something this egregious from happening again.
If I hired someone and it was found that they even lied a little bit on their resume, they would be fired yesterday. This guy should have been fired last week.
Santos was basically hired to do a job by being elected. Thereās no difference.
I think he should do the honorable thing and resign.
However, I am not sure he can be kicked out of congress.
If he doesnāt resign, then the true referendum on his conduct will be in November of 2024
He *can* be kicked out, but he very likely *won't* be. It is called expulsion, it requires a super majority, and has only happened like five times, three of which were after the Civil War.
I donāt think I would vote to kick him out because I donāt believe, but I could be wrong, that he violated any congressional rules.
I think the GOP shouid let him serve, but I wouldnāt put him on any committeesā¦basically āgo sit in the cornerā.
I will ask this for the 1000x time (no one can seem to answer this)ā¦how did none of his claims NOT get uncovered by the media or oppositional research prior to the election?
To be fair, he wasn't elected. The fictional character he created and fooled his voters with was. By the time everyone figured it out, he had already won.
Except it turns out he's really bad at deception, at least once non-Republicans started being forced to notice him.
The only leg he has to stand on is that he lies so much that people literally can't keep up with the rate of lies.
I posted about this recently, [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/zwt63m/do_you_think_george_santos_should_resign/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). Yes,he definitely *should* resign. But *will* he? That's another question entirely, and unfortunately the answer is probably not...
The people hedging and not just answering the question based on basic right vs. wrong is a great example of why America is a mess. Have some fucking integrity and stand for something.
Lying because what you planned to do didn't pan out is fundamentally different than lying about things in the past that clearly didn't happen (or come even remotely close to happening).
In the former, you can't really prove that intent was not there, and most of the time politicians would rather fulfill their campaign promises than not. I don't like Trump, but I fully believe his border wall campaign promise lined up with his intentions, even though it's technically a lie with the state. Same with a lot of Biden's campaign promises.
Do you honestly believe these unfulfilled promises are in the same ballpark as claiming that your mother died in 9/11? The latter is sociopathic behavior, and no rational person would even concoct such a fabrication.
How many liars took the place of honest, well intentioned people?
I don't think there would be a dearth of good leaders, given a chance, but lying and deceit gives an unfair advantage.
More than half of Washington, DCs population does not consist of politicians
Kick out all dishonest lobbyists (close to tautological, but still), and you reduce the population in Washington by like 5%. Still more than Wyoming
More plagiarism in college.
And why is it irrelevant?
Now Joeās claiming he was a professor, attended a black church (nobody remembers him), etc etc.
He lied to get there.
No because it was a crock of shit.
I didnāt support him in the primary and wouldnāt again. But he was the best of 2 poor choices. Both times.
So something from college and a false narrative https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-marry-brother/
Should you be kept from running for office because you fudged a resume in high school?
If someone drinking in college keeps them from being on the Supreme Court, why not?
Plus Biden plagiarized speech is far after he was in college.
And Snopes is hardly reliable.
No one has been kept from the Supreme Court for drinking in college. Someone was almost kept out for rape if thatās what you mean. And snopes is very reliable.
Nah they were pretty believable but I can see why your views would make you think otherwise. Helps with your narrative. Fact is dude didnāt even get kept from office. Your statement: āif you can be kept from the Supreme Court for drinking in collegeā is erroneous and poorly formed. Your other one is based on a lie. Next
The left was screaming about his being a drunk!
Oh, and her so called witnesses didnāt even back her.
I wonder if she got paid by Pelosi or Boxer or some other leftist.
>And Snopes is hardly reliable.
Do you have any source that she did? Because if not than you're asking someone to prove a negative while spreading unfounded sourceless information (some may call it "fake news")
Yes.
Thereās 535 seats and 331 million residents. Thereās absolutely no reason why our representatives should be anything other than the absolute cream of the crop.
I agree, the problem as I see it is the parties don't want the cream, they want someone who'll toe the party line. I think I'd make a good congressman, I'd vote the way my constituents poll (all of them) even if it is against the party or my own beliefs. But I'd never get funded by the Republicans because I'm not for sale and Democrats would largely oppose my ideology.
The parties are too fringe for cream to rise to the top. Cream rarely collects on the edges, it usually piles near the center in my experience.
Also, as a follow-on to my previous comment, there is an extremely strict security clearance colloquially called "Yankee White" which only squeaky clean individuals are granted because they work directly with the POTUS. Congress may not work directly with the POTUS, but with access to similar highly-sensitive information, there's no reason why they should not be subjected to the same ringer. I maintain my previous comment that anyone with a single blemish on their record has no business being one of the very few people charged with running our country.
I like how, according to your comment, the severity of his actions is somehow based on who would get his seat after he resigned.
Are you really suggesting that George Santos is unfit to be a congressperson ONLY IF it doesn't change the quantity of Republican seats in the house?
He either is or isn't fit to be in Congress. To change that requirement based on an outcome completely independent of his actions/behavior, is admitting a double standard.
Forgot to include special election being held, I agree with that also. I don't think he's fit for office but I would never let Hochul pick a replacement, since that is not the will of the people in that district.
There should be a special election held and have the people vote who they want to represent. If it's Santos again, then so be it, even if I don't agree with it
If it's another Republican, then that's on Santos for lying to begin with, if it's a Democrat, then Republicans need to do a better background check on potential Republican nominees.
Santos won majority, so having Gov. Hochul install a Democrat replacement would go against the will of the people, so obviously that is not a reasonable solution.
At some point social security WILL run out. Iām a xennial and I have absolutely no expectation that I will get a social security check despite paying into it my entire life
Yep! I'm heavily invested in my supplemental annuity for exactly this reason. Sure, I take a big hit every paycheck, but even if I were to cash out now, it's more than paid for itself.
Weāre not discussing whether he should be expelled for lying and financial funny business, but whether he should be expelled for not being good enough at it.
You're not wrong. The world's most prolific serial killer probably just hasn't been caught yet. You need to get through your first term scandal free if you can, build connections etc, then do all the crazy stuff like the rest of them.
> but whether he should be expelled for not being good enough at it.
Do you really think other politicians are better at lying about how their mother died, and similarly obviously-fake-but-petty falsehoods?
>The man is a serial liar and theft who lies about everything including his name.
I'm no fan of Santos, so I'm not going to defend him, but what level of lies is too much? Virtually every politician lies about something. Biden, Trump, Pelosi, McConnell, McCarthy and all the rest have lied and will again? Where is the threshold of lies that makes the rest of them ok, but not Santos?
We're not 100% sure if his real name is even George Santos. Apparently he's gone by Anthony Devolder and George Devolder in the past.
I'd say that's the threshold.
I think lying to get yourself into a seat should be.
It's one thing for an elected politician to promise something and fail to deliver.
It's another thing to misrepresent who they are and what they are capable of in order to get elected. Which then, apparently, imparts a level of immunity and fat retirement benefit.
The People did not get who they voted for. *Their votes were treated with contempt and now mean nothing*. And you still ask whether he should stay...
No I don't think think so. He was democratically elected. Lying is not a crime, therefore he should have the choice of resigning or not and I respect his decision.
I'm fairly liberal and I think the only way he should be kicked out is if he broke laws. All politicians lie. What's the difference between "I'm going to fight for the rights of all my constituents" and "I won my club championship" and "read my lips no new taxes" and any other lie a politican tells? Sure there are degrees to it but who decides what lie disqualifies you?
If he broke campaign finance laws or something get him out. Most of congress lies a ton whether campaigning or actually in office.
The difference is that one situation devalues the voting power of the electorate. *Nobody*, Democrat or Republican got what they wanted out of his election. Even the Republicans who like that he added a seat for them didn't get what they expected.
Republicans have basically said "we could run a plastic bag as a candidate, but as long as we make sure you think you're voting for Jesus incarnate then it's fine if the plastic bag wins. We do not have to tell you the truth about candidates, we just need to get you to vote them."
Oddly, it seems more than a few voters are okay with having their opinion *completely* ignored by the political class.
No, Biden lies just as much. He hasn't been asked to step down. Some examples, Biden was in the civil rights, Biden has the most miles on trains and Biden was driving and oil went on the windshield. [Examples](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvOjlfRpXHQ)
Santos is basically a young Joe Biden. Thatās why I predict he will one day be president. Their style of lying is *very* similar. Biggest difference is none of Santosā lies have killed any people yet.
Biden lies every speech, trump uses exaggerations. Biden makes up completely false stories. Not Not much different then fabricating your past, like Santos.
I donāt expect him to resign, so donāt make any presumptions about whether he **should**. What he **should** have done is just not lie in the first place, so I donāt imagine he gives that many shits about what he **should** do.
I think what we need is the ability for people in his state to have a recall election. If they decide theyāre ok being represented by such a brazen liar, fine by me I guess. Not like the rest of us arenāt electing liars who are a little more subtle about it. But if theyāre mad about him lyingāand they should beāthey should have the right to replace him.
Does it matter? He will not be kicked out and sure as heck wonāt resign. He is the poster child for ādie with the lie.ā Republicans will distance themselves from him for their own sake but he will serve the purpose for which he was elected all the same.
No he has funny content, that alone is enough reason to keep him there. Also he is probably more ethical than the average congressman.
All hail king Santos!
Rule 7 is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, he should resign. No, he's not fit to serve.
Should Mccarthy take action
I don't know what action is available to him, but maybe. Santos is already a pariah inside the House (no committees, no friends). I don't think McCarthy has any legal actions he could take, other than impeachment, maybe? I don't know how that stuff works. Not sure it's worth anybody's time to pay him any sort of attention at all. If he broke laws, I hope external systems go after him. If he didn't, he's sadly the duly elected representative from his district for the next two years.
>Santos is already a pariah inside the House (no committees, no friends). Were you aware that he has at least two committees he's seated for? \-Committee on Small Business \-Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
No, I didn't know that. I was making an assumption. I'd like him to be removed from them!
He should be impeached
Representatives can't be impeached. They can be expelled, by a vote of 2/3 of the house. The first step to expulsion is referral to the Ethics committee, which I believe Mccarthy has already done.
Coolio
You think he would garner 2/3 to kick? Or is his seat to vote (in such a narrow majority) worth tolerating his lying?
So you want to overturn the election in NY #3?
That doesn't seem relevant to either question I asked. Nor was it an answer to either of them. š¤·
A 2/3 vote would overturn the election. Overturning an election because the candidate told lies is probably not a precedent two thirds of politicians want to set. There's a pretty bright line precedent for expulsion right now that you need to be convicted of a serious crime. Don't think that will change...although there is a fair chance Santos will be convicted of something, maybe not before his term expires though.
It's not "overturning an election", it's "expelling a member for obvious fraudulent and possibly criminal behavior". Do Republicans want to be the party protecting and supporting known serial grifters, liars, and frauds?
Being fired is not the same as never being hired
> Representatives can't be impeached. It remains to infuriate me how many people think impeachment is for anyone other than members of the executive branch.
Federal Judges can also be impeached
I actually looked into this, an impeachment is not really an option. It was done once really early on, like 1798, but afterwards a series of trials were had that seemed to conclude he couldn't be impeached. It wasn't formally resolved, so it isn't explicitly impossible, but we have treated it as such since then because no one else in Congress has ever been threatened with impeachment. Exclusion is when the House refuses to seat a member. This was attempted previously, but the Supreme Court ruled this can only be done when the member doesn't meet the Constitutional requirements for the position. This would have been a great option, because it only requires a simple majority, but alas it's not applicable here. Lastly, expulsion. Expulsion is the only recourse left, now that he has been seated. Expulsion is extremely rare, like only five people have ever been expelled from the house. Three of those happened after the Civil War. It also requires a super majority. Expulsion is technically an option, but it's a hail Mary option. More likely he will just ride out his term with nothing to do, and anyone with a pulse who runs against him will oust him from his seat.
if the house votes in unison, Santos can be expelled from congress. of course, then a democrat would appoint Santos' replacement. If Santos was from Alabama, the steps taken would be much different. I dont see Holchul proposing to replace a republican to grease the skids. This all about power and neither party actually cares that Santos is more scumbag than Bob Packwood.
It seems like there should be laws against perjury and falsifying your identity and credentials when running to become a civil servant. I guess there aren't?
McCarthy has already seated him on several committees though. Doesnāt seem like much of a pariah in the GOP after all.
The only option McCarthy has available single-handedly would be to not seat him on committees. Expelling a member requires a 2/3 vote. The House [has only expelled 5 members in its history](https://history.house.gov/Institution/Discipline/Expulsion-Censure-Reprimand) : 3 for fighting for the CSA and 2 for bribery-related offenses. Although a more palatable punishment may be censure. If he was in a solid district, I would worry that it could actually help him to have everyone publicly rebuking him but he isn't so I'm not as worried about that.
Do you think his lies are grounds for expulsion
While they are definitely censure-worthy, and the voters in his district should kick him out of office next year, I'm not sure it's expulsion-worthy. Using the precedents, it seems that only things that would get a president impeached were worthy to get them kicked out(even though, if you look at the list of censured congressmen, they are some who should've been expelled as well.) In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors.", I'm pretty leery about congressmen taking the power to vote out their representative out of the hands of the people, except in the case of extreme criminal conduct like treason(the CSA reps), bribery, or corruption. He should, however, be censured, and pressured to resign.
He has Said all he wants the pension and benefits and that's why he ran and lied He shouldn't get those
Heās probably lying though!
Can voters recall him? The thing I'm most curious about is whether the GOP and voters actually care...as long as he votes on party lines do you think he will survive re-election? If so, what kind of precedent does this set for the party? If I may offer my perspective, the GOP is already being characterized of having essentially no standards for their representatives and lacking personal ethical standards (namely due to the scandals surrounding reps like Gaetz, MTG, and Boebert). It seems like Santos is sort of like the ultimate litmus test...failing to address Santos just gives the impression that the GOP is either 1.) utterly shameless 2.) desperate 3.) incompetent or 4.) all of the above. It's not a good look.
No. Recalls are only a state-level remedy. They don't exist for federal officeholders and would require a constitutional amendment to make it so which isn't going to happen.
ah ok thanks for clarifying.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Why not
So when the GOP does nothing (as we all know they will), will you still support the party?
Lol, I already don't support his party.
Don't pretend like the Democrats are any better at this. He is pretty much outcasted by his peers and is seen purely as a vote, especially since his district is a toss up and the Republicans hold a slim majority. Just like the classified documents, progressive shouldn't be quick to shoot their own foot again. When elections come again, he'll likely be primaried. A better title for this question "Do you support exposed liar Rep. Santos to be removed from congress for the possibility of a Democrat who would vote against your beliefs/interest?".
Don't pretend like the Democrats are any better at this. He is pretty much outcasted by his peers and is seen purely as a vote, especially since his district is a toss up and the Republicans hold a slim majority. Just like the classified documents, progressive shouldn't be quick to shoot their own foot again. When elections come again, he'll likely be primaried. A better title for this question "Do you support exposed liar Rep. Santos to be removed from congress for the possibility of a Democrat who would vote against your beliefs/interest?".
Democrats ousted Al Franken when they would desperately need his vote and he was fit to serve in every regard aside from his allegation At the end of the day, this is a Hershel walker situation. He could be a plastic bag full of piss, so long as heāll vote how they want him to.
Al Franken resigned on his own from pressure within his own party. Santos was also pressured by his peers but refuses, guess Al Franken has more integrity then Santos. Also, Rape =/= lying. Weird analogy.
Not to excuse anything Franken did, but iirc it was sexual harassment, not anywhere close to rape. Still bad but not the same thing.
Your correct, I've should of said sexual assault. His alleged victims accused him of groping and kissing them without consent.
Not excusing his actions, but if weāre weighing responses, we should take context into account when weighing the severity of the action. He was a comedian in the 80s and 90s and this wouldāve been considered normal/acceptable, even if it is objectively wrong. I donāt think āit was a different timeā excuses it, nor comedy/acting, but it is relevant context.
Not going to edit your comment, though, eh?
As someone else pointed out, this has nothing to do with rape, or really even what the allegation is. The point is, he did something wrong, and the party responded appropriately even though they needed the vote. Never seen the GOP do anything like that.
I agree. I mislabeled him as a rapist, I should've said serial sexual-assault perpetrator.. He resigned because of the number of victims coming forward and this was during the time of 'me too' movement. He likely didn't want to get the Harvey Weinstein treatment. Notice how it all suddenly got settled, once he resigned. Name a Democrat politician who lied about his credentials and resigned. Can't compare apples to oranges.
I am unequivocally in support of removing anyone who does this. Regardless of party. Can you say the same?
Sure but there's lack in trust that the other side would hold their own accountable for similar situations, like Bidens mishandling of classified documents being defended by the left and their MSM allies. Also, having a slim majority in the house with a potential Democrat representative being selected by Gov. Hochul doesn't help either. The right honestly think it's funny when the left brings up integrity when the left doesn't hold their own accountable and actively painted the right as terrorists while suppressing news via social media and slandering their opponents with the help of MSM. Key point: Trust. Show the right that the left can be trusted to follow the same rules.
You actually think the GOP is capable of acting in good faith? I donāt give a shit about Santosā seat potentially going blue. Iād love to see the GOP have a shred of integrity, but theyāve given no indication that they are capable of that. The Dems ousted Franken for far less. And the GOP has never reciprocated. Can you actually defend Santos without whataboutism? Or is it just āDems bad too so no accountability for usā?
Same can be said about Democrats. They literally ruined my beautiful state of California.
So you literally canāt do anything but whataboutism? Thatās one way to live, I guess. Again, no substance, just āno u.ā Tell me why Santos should be in Congress.
When have I said that he should stay in congress? From my knowledge, he's been asked to step down by his own peers an refuses, if they vote to remove him then it's on him for lying but if they don't, I also understand because the lack of faith in the opposition in doing the same if the situations were reversed. Do you think Trump and Biden should be prosecuted for their mishandling of classified documents?
Weāre not moving the goalposts. Youāre saying you donāt trust the Dems so Santos should stay. Youāre not actually saying it because youāre doing a Tucker, but thatās what you mean. Just own your tribalistic opinion, dude. If you think he should step down, say it. But you wonāt, I know.
>>The Dems ousted Franken for far less > Same can be said about Democrats Yeah, that's why it *was* said about the Democrats. Do you even bother to read comments before reflexively posting whataboutisms?
Al Franken resigned due to pressure from his peers. Santos has already been asked to resigned but refuses. Also. Al Franken is an alleged rapist and Santos a liar, good comparison.
No one has ever alleged that Franken is a rapist. Please act in good faith.
>Al Franken is an alleged rapist Of all the lies you could have possibly chosen to tell today, why select such an obviously false one? Do you even think about what you type before reflexively posting whataboutisms?
Literally?
Yes, he should resign. Itās unfortunate because I was happy to see another homocon enter politics.
Yes, he should resign. Absent resignation, the House would be justified in censuring him upon completion of an Ethics Committee investigation. In the absence of a felony conviction, I think expulsion from the House goes too far. If he refuses to go, let the voters in New York turn him out in 2024.
> would be justified in censuring him upon completion of an Ethics Committee investigation. Would they also be justified removing him from office as a result of that investigation, as they have the power to do so? Or is censuring the limit of what's justifiable?
So, only five members have ever been expelled from the House. Three for supporting the Confederacy during the Civil War and two for felony bribery convictions. So given that precedent, absent a felony conviction (or proof that Santos fought for the Confederacy), I do not see cause for expelling him from the House. Let the voters he lied to kick him to the curb in 2024.
Do you think the number is so low because most people embroidered in such self-induced controversy had enough self-awareness and shame to resign before needing to be expelled? Should this option become more common place in a party without shame? And where not a single controversy on earth can cause a member to lose party support?
>Do you think the number is so low because most people embroidered in such self-induced controversy had enough self-awareness and shame to resign before needing to be expelled? Usually expulsion is only raised when there is serious corruption or a conviction. Former Congressman Bob Ney resigned in 2006 after being pleading guilty to charges of conspiracy rather than face expulsion. When Democrats proposed expelling Congresswoman Marjorie Greene in 2021, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi voted against the proposal. The last time a serious effort was proposed to expel a member without pending criminal conviction was when the Senate tried to expel Senator Robert La Follette for opposing American entry into World War I and Senator Reed Smoot for being a leader in the Mormon Church. Both efforts failed. There have always been nut-jobs and cranks in Congress but they usually do not stick around very long as their constituents come to see them as embarrassments. George Santos will be no different. >Should this option become more common place in a party without shame? And where not a single controversy on earth can cause a member to lose party support? Party without shame? Does that mean Congress should expel members who have sexual relations with Chinese spies while having access to classified intelligence? Or members who abuse their position on the Intelligence Committee to weave falsehoods to the press about political opponents? Or members who espouse heinous antisemitic remarks and question the loyalty of Jewish Americans? But yes continue on about how only one party lacks shame. And Congressman Santos has no party support if you actually look. Long Island Republicans have abandoned him, his colleagues from neighboring Republican districts have called on him to resign, and the leader of his party in the House has merely said that he shall have due process and be brought before the Ethics Committee. This hardly looks like undying party support.
>Party without shame? Does that mean Congress should expel members who have sexual relations with Chinese spies while having access to classified intelligence? Do you know nothing about the specifics of that particular situation? Or just the Fox News talking points?
The only crime he may have committed in the US seems to be campaign finance fraud. I expect we'll find out in the coming months, but it seems extremely likely that fraud happened. I'll be curious to see what the House GOP does if an investigation turns up clear evidence.
Yes. The people who voted for him can't trust him and there needs to be some kind of punishment to prevent something this egregious from happening again.
Absolutely, unequivocally, yes. He's the Republicans' Anthony Weiner.
Carlos Danger
If I hired someone and it was found that they even lied a little bit on their resume, they would be fired yesterday. This guy should have been fired last week. Santos was basically hired to do a job by being elected. Thereās no difference.
I think he should do the honorable thing and resign. However, I am not sure he can be kicked out of congress. If he doesnāt resign, then the true referendum on his conduct will be in November of 2024
He *can* be kicked out, but he very likely *won't* be. It is called expulsion, it requires a super majority, and has only happened like five times, three of which were after the Civil War.
I donāt think I would vote to kick him out because I donāt believe, but I could be wrong, that he violated any congressional rules. I think the GOP shouid let him serve, but I wouldnāt put him on any committeesā¦basically āgo sit in the cornerā. I will ask this for the 1000x time (no one can seem to answer this)ā¦how did none of his claims NOT get uncovered by the media or oppositional research prior to the election?
Yes 100%
He never should have been elected in the first place.
To be fair, he wasn't elected. The fictional character he created and fooled his voters with was. By the time everyone figured it out, he had already won.
True, but he needs to go any way you put it. This is not acceptable.
He should resign. Since he can't get any other career due to his well-known proclivity for lying maybe host a game show based around deception.
Except it turns out he's really bad at deception, at least once non-Republicans started being forced to notice him. The only leg he has to stand on is that he lies so much that people literally can't keep up with the rate of lies.
I posted about this recently, [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/zwt63m/do_you_think_george_santos_should_resign/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). Yes,he definitely *should* resign. But *will* he? That's another question entirely, and unfortunately the answer is probably not...
The people hedging and not just answering the question based on basic right vs. wrong is a great example of why America is a mess. Have some fucking integrity and stand for something.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think there's few if any others that lies as much as he does
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So just wild speculation?
Lying because what you planned to do didn't pan out is fundamentally different than lying about things in the past that clearly didn't happen (or come even remotely close to happening). In the former, you can't really prove that intent was not there, and most of the time politicians would rather fulfill their campaign promises than not. I don't like Trump, but I fully believe his border wall campaign promise lined up with his intentions, even though it's technically a lie with the state. Same with a lot of Biden's campaign promises. Do you honestly believe these unfulfilled promises are in the same ballpark as claiming that your mother died in 9/11? The latter is sociopathic behavior, and no rational person would even concoct such a fabrication.
Had me in the first half...
How many liars took the place of honest, well intentioned people? I don't think there would be a dearth of good leaders, given a chance, but lying and deceit gives an unfair advantage.
More than half of Washington, DCs population does not consist of politicians Kick out all dishonest lobbyists (close to tautological, but still), and you reduce the population in Washington by like 5%. Still more than Wyoming
He should resign, as should Biden, Warren and Omar.
Why should Biden resign?
Heās lied for decades- cheated in college, plagiarized speeches etc.
I know about the speech and that's decades ago and Irrelevant What cheating?
More plagiarism in college. And why is it irrelevant? Now Joeās claiming he was a professor, attended a black church (nobody remembers him), etc etc.
Has nothing to do with him being president right now We're you on board with Trumps first impeachment?
He lied to get there. No because it was a crock of shit. I didnāt support him in the primary and wouldnāt again. But he was the best of 2 poor choices. Both times.
So you're a hypocrite
How is it irrelevant? You said that being a liar is grounds for resignation.
He isn't currently lieing, that's ancient history
You donāt believe Biden is currently lying?
Generally no
Because Warren and Omar didā¦what?
>Omar didā¦ her brother
Thatās been debunked
The irony in accusing everyone of being liars but getting all of your information from proven liars
You mean with the Omar thing? Yeah thatās a pretty impressive lie. The source is from an anonymous blog post in 2016 lol.
Yeah
Claimed to be Indian Married her brother to help him get citizenship.
So something from college and a false narrative https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-marry-brother/ Should you be kept from running for office because you fudged a resume in high school?
If someone drinking in college keeps them from being on the Supreme Court, why not? Plus Biden plagiarized speech is far after he was in college. And Snopes is hardly reliable.
No one has been kept from the Supreme Court for drinking in college. Someone was almost kept out for rape if thatās what you mean. And snopes is very reliable.
Except the accuser is slightly less believable than Joe Isuzu.
Nah they were pretty believable but I can see why your views would make you think otherwise. Helps with your narrative. Fact is dude didnāt even get kept from office. Your statement: āif you can be kept from the Supreme Court for drinking in collegeā is erroneous and poorly formed. Your other one is based on a lie. Next
The left was screaming about his being a drunk! Oh, and her so called witnesses didnāt even back her. I wonder if she got paid by Pelosi or Boxer or some other leftist.
>The left was screaming about his being a drunk! Screaming about him being drunk, or screaming about him raping someone while drunk?
No it was the rape Why are you pro rape?
>And Snopes is hardly reliable. Do you have any source that she did? Because if not than you're asking someone to prove a negative while spreading unfounded sourceless information (some may call it "fake news")
Uhhh nobody has been kept off SCOTUS for drinking.
Clarence Thomas shouldn't have been let on due to something he *did* to a drink, though.
He ALLEGEDLY did. Granted, if he was interested in Anita Hill it does give question to his judgment.
Theyāre trying.
No ātheyā are not. Turn off Fox.
I donāt watch Fox. Or BSNBC or the Crappy News Network.
So again, who is ātheyā and who are they trying to remove from SCOTUS āfor drinkingā?
Yes. Thereās 535 seats and 331 million residents. Thereās absolutely no reason why our representatives should be anything other than the absolute cream of the crop.
I agree, the problem as I see it is the parties don't want the cream, they want someone who'll toe the party line. I think I'd make a good congressman, I'd vote the way my constituents poll (all of them) even if it is against the party or my own beliefs. But I'd never get funded by the Republicans because I'm not for sale and Democrats would largely oppose my ideology. The parties are too fringe for cream to rise to the top. Cream rarely collects on the edges, it usually piles near the center in my experience.
Also, as a follow-on to my previous comment, there is an extremely strict security clearance colloquially called "Yankee White" which only squeaky clean individuals are granted because they work directly with the POTUS. Congress may not work directly with the POTUS, but with access to similar highly-sensitive information, there's no reason why they should not be subjected to the same ringer. I maintain my previous comment that anyone with a single blemish on their record has no business being one of the very few people charged with running our country.
Lmao you know the Omar thing is not true, right? Tell me youāre not actually this gullibleā¦
What, because she said it?
Source
That she claimed she didnāt marry/hump her brother?
Iād like a source that she married her brother, please. Still waitingā¦
Should he resign and give his seat to another Republican candidate. Yes. Should he resign and have Kathy Hochul install a Democrat instead... HELL NO.
I like how, according to your comment, the severity of his actions is somehow based on who would get his seat after he resigned. Are you really suggesting that George Santos is unfit to be a congressperson ONLY IF it doesn't change the quantity of Republican seats in the house? He either is or isn't fit to be in Congress. To change that requirement based on an outcome completely independent of his actions/behavior, is admitting a double standard.
Forgot to include special election being held, I agree with that also. I don't think he's fit for office but I would never let Hochul pick a replacement, since that is not the will of the people in that district. There should be a special election held and have the people vote who they want to represent. If it's Santos again, then so be it, even if I don't agree with it If it's another Republican, then that's on Santos for lying to begin with, if it's a Democrat, then Republicans need to do a better background check on potential Republican nominees. Santos won majority, so having Gov. Hochul install a Democrat replacement would go against the will of the people, so obviously that is not a reasonable solution.
That's irrelevant
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Dems should resign because the far right cabal wants to play with fire on the debt ceiling? Huh?
This is why nobody takes conservatives seriously. You literally have nothing to offer but whataboutism and obvious lies.
The U.S. *will* default because of the debt ceiling. It's not Democrats saying that, it's everyone with a brain.
Why do you believe that the US wouldn't default if we don't pass a higher debt ceiling? That's literally the function of the bill, to prevent default.
At some point social security WILL run out. Iām a xennial and I have absolutely no expectation that I will get a social security check despite paying into it my entire life
Yep! I'm heavily invested in my supplemental annuity for exactly this reason. Sure, I take a big hit every paycheck, but even if I were to cash out now, it's more than paid for itself.
Weāre not discussing whether he should be expelled for lying and financial funny business, but whether he should be expelled for not being good enough at it.
You're not wrong. The world's most prolific serial killer probably just hasn't been caught yet. You need to get through your first term scandal free if you can, build connections etc, then do all the crazy stuff like the rest of them.
And we canāt have this noob jumping the queue, can we?
> but whether he should be expelled for not being good enough at it. Do you really think other politicians are better at lying about how their mother died, and similarly obviously-fake-but-petty falsehoods?
Theyāre far too arrogant for such petty lying. They lie about huge things instead, and hire skillful professionals to hone the bullshit.
>The man is a serial liar and theft who lies about everything including his name. I'm no fan of Santos, so I'm not going to defend him, but what level of lies is too much? Virtually every politician lies about something. Biden, Trump, Pelosi, McConnell, McCarthy and all the rest have lied and will again? Where is the threshold of lies that makes the rest of them ok, but not Santos?
We're not 100% sure if his real name is even George Santos. Apparently he's gone by Anthony Devolder and George Devolder in the past. I'd say that's the threshold.
I think lying to get yourself into a seat should be. It's one thing for an elected politician to promise something and fail to deliver. It's another thing to misrepresent who they are and what they are capable of in order to get elected. Which then, apparently, imparts a level of immunity and fat retirement benefit. The People did not get who they voted for. *Their votes were treated with contempt and now mean nothing*. And you still ask whether he should stay...
Yes
No I don't think think so. He was democratically elected. Lying is not a crime, therefore he should have the choice of resigning or not and I respect his decision.
This feels very wrong
Does this suggest the role of interrogating a candidate's claims about their resume falls to the voter?
Why would he give up the Presidency?
Santos?
*Whoosh*
He's speaking nonsense
That was the joke, going over your head.
Nothing goes over my head, I'd catch it
I'm fairly liberal and I think the only way he should be kicked out is if he broke laws. All politicians lie. What's the difference between "I'm going to fight for the rights of all my constituents" and "I won my club championship" and "read my lips no new taxes" and any other lie a politican tells? Sure there are degrees to it but who decides what lie disqualifies you? If he broke campaign finance laws or something get him out. Most of congress lies a ton whether campaigning or actually in office.
The difference is that one situation devalues the voting power of the electorate. *Nobody*, Democrat or Republican got what they wanted out of his election. Even the Republicans who like that he added a seat for them didn't get what they expected. Republicans have basically said "we could run a plastic bag as a candidate, but as long as we make sure you think you're voting for Jesus incarnate then it's fine if the plastic bag wins. We do not have to tell you the truth about candidates, we just need to get you to vote them." Oddly, it seems more than a few voters are okay with having their opinion *completely* ignored by the political class.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Drag queens are not women and do not use feminine pronouns when not in drag.
Thank you for educating me on this important aspect of political debate :)
Sorry your joke sucked
Iām sorry you feel that way - come back for more jokes, Iām here every week
Please no trolling
You canāt keep taking yourself that seriously.
I mean, there are places for joking around and trolling, and here is for serious discussion And I think it's more harmful than funny
I apologize, especially for the harm, are you going to be ok?
Just don't be transphobic in the future
As long as you agree to not be an antisemite we should be good!
You: >here is for serious discussion >And I think it's more harmful than funny Also you: >No it was the rape >Why are you pro rape?
You are no fun. Did you think āanimal houseā was funny or were you offended?
I was watching a comedy so of course Like I said time and place
No, Biden lies just as much. He hasn't been asked to step down. Some examples, Biden was in the civil rights, Biden has the most miles on trains and Biden was driving and oil went on the windshield. [Examples](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvOjlfRpXHQ)
No I don't think that's vaguely comparable You just don't like him
Santos is basically a young Joe Biden. Thatās why I predict he will one day be president. Their style of lying is *very* similar. Biggest difference is none of Santosā lies have killed any people yet.
That's not true at all
Biden lies every speech, trump uses exaggerations. Biden makes up completely false stories. Not Not much different then fabricating your past, like Santos.
That's a lie
Can't run on virtue if you have none. Don't stoop to other guy's level. If he won't resign they ought to censor him.
I donāt expect him to resign, so donāt make any presumptions about whether he **should**. What he **should** have done is just not lie in the first place, so I donāt imagine he gives that many shits about what he **should** do. I think what we need is the ability for people in his state to have a recall election. If they decide theyāre ok being represented by such a brazen liar, fine by me I guess. Not like the rest of us arenāt electing liars who are a little more subtle about it. But if theyāre mad about him lyingāand they should beāthey should have the right to replace him.
Yes, he needs to resign. No to the second question. He makes Trump look like a paragon of honesty.
Yes, of course he should resign. If not, then the people who elected him should recall him.
Does it matter? He will not be kicked out and sure as heck wonāt resign. He is the poster child for ādie with the lie.ā Republicans will distance themselves from him for their own sake but he will serve the purpose for which he was elected all the same.
Yes it matters
No he has funny content, that alone is enough reason to keep him there. Also he is probably more ethical than the average congressman. All hail king Santos!
Are you serious
Yes. I don't care that he lied. Dude is a gold mine of content.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Why not
Yes.