Did George Santos lie about everything?

[Boiler 44,855]

George is still waiting another day.

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

9 hours ago, Ontarkie said:

~~Two more posts have been removed. If you do not like an action by moderations  you know the proper steps to take.~~

If you're referring to me, then no, actually I do not.  All I know is that mods can delete anything they want, whether it's called for or not.  Suppression of free speech much?  Yeah, it happens here.  A lot.  But it's my own fault, I reckon, since I keep hanging around.  

Some members become favorites of certain mods, and are treated accordingly.  Has been happening for over a decade now.

8 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Has Santos been charged?  All this hysterical blathering from the establishment is just laughable considering what they do on a daily basis, but whatever.  I do wonder why the Democrat running against him did not make all of this public before election day?  Clyde Shavers in Washington was called out for his blatant lies by his own father, and yet the good Democrats in his district ignored it and elected him.

 

Again I ask, what is the point of focusing on Santos while ignoring all the rest of the DC hypocrites?

 

https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2022/11/01/clyde-shavers-221101/

+1,000

[Mike E 11,732]

2 hours ago, laylalex said:

But I think the big thing here is that he was indicted for check fraud in Brazil and skipped out on it before the case could go forward

If it was the big  thing why not lead with it in your OP?

But if is an issue for a Brazil, they can try to extradite him. Except that because a Brazil’s constitution doesn’t allow it to extradite its own citizens to other countries, the Brazil / U.S. extradition treaty doesn’t allow Santos to be extradited.  Because America does reciprocity. 
 

https://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/brazil1.pdf

 

So given Santos is innocent until proven guilty, and given he isn’t going to trial, the check fraud allegation is a nothing burger. 
 

And after that there is nothing left. 
 

Unless we want to weaponize politicians lying.  

And I do want to weaponize it.

 

Do you?

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by Mike E

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

3 hours ago, laylalex said:

Completely agree with you. Accountability is for everyone. Politicians should not be lining their pockets through their work for us, their employers. This isn't to say they should all take an oath of poverty, but that how they make their money should be more transparent. I think most people could agree with that. The next step is to figure out what accountability would look like, and how we could build structures to support transparency. Is it just tax returns? Are there other kinds of disclosures we would want to see, and why? George Santos is an outlier in terms of breadth of deception, I think, but there is almost certainly greater depth of deception by politicians of both major parties that is more meaningful. Let's find out.

 

I think what I personally am concerned about is that this number of lies -- some big, some small, some consequential, some not -- by Santos is somehow treated as "politics as usual" and therefore okay. Or that because other people have told bigger whoppers his should be ignored. It doesn't make it any worse that it's a Republican or a Democrat or a Libertarian or a whatever. Honesty should be rewarded, and deception should be uncovered and have consequences. Uncover as many untruths as possible, wherever they are.

 

Just my two pennies.  

Are you not aware of all the lies Biden has told in the past 60 years?  Or are you just pretending?

Edited January 5, 2023 by LIBrty4all

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

2 hours ago, Mike E said:

Big, small are meaningless. 
 

The metric system doesn’t have a unit of measurement for size of a lie.  
 

How do you objectively decide Santos should not be sat in Congress versus say Lindsay Graham?
 

 

Well said, @Mike E.  Spot on!

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

2 hours ago, laylalex said:

I didn't actually say he shouldn't be seated, because under House rules he can be seated. The rules are the rules and that is that. I am actually trying to keep this focused on Santos rather than looking at what other people have done, so I'm not going to address Lindsay Graham or Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden. But I think the big thing here is that he was indicted for check fraud in Brazil and skipped out on it before the case could go forward. That says a lot about character and fitness to serve. Are there other members of Congress who have been indicted and then evaded prosecution for fraud? I honestly don't know. But to me, that IS a big deal. Others may disagree. 

 

We can say Biden lied about this or Graham lied about that, but I disagree that there is no difference between big and small lies. Lying about finishing college is kind of meaningless if you can do the job, and there's no requirement to have a degree. Lying about your expertise when you're leading people to believe that your expertise will help you be a more effective representative, yeah, I think that's more meaningful. Lying about your mom dying in 9/11 or your employees being gunned down in a mass shooting are just dumb lies, which point to someone who's, well, kind of dumb. Evading prosecution after you have confessed to a crime and then not telling your electorate about it, that's a big lie because it goes to character.

 

Hold everyone to account, absolutely. But we don't need to be nihilists about it.

What about politicians who lie about their sons dying in combat?

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

5 minutes ago, Mike E said:

If it was the big  thing why not lead with it in your OP?

But if is an issue for a Brazil, they can try to extradite him. Except that because a Brazil’s constitution doesn’t allow it to extradite its own citizens to other countries, the Brazil / U.S. extradition treaty doesn’t allow Santos to be extradited.  Because America does reciprocity. 
 

https://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/brazil1.pdf

 

So given Santos is innocent until proven guilty, and given he isn’t going to trial, the check fraud allegation is a nothing burger. 
 

And after that there is nothing left. 
 

Unless we want to weaponize politicians lying.  

And I do want to weaponize it.

 

Do you?

 

Because it's a nothing burger cuz THE BIG GUY didn't do it.  Please try and stick with the agenda.

[beloved_dingo 1,973]

18 hours ago, Mike E said:

1. “Nearly” a vague term.  Quantify it.   
 

2. Are you more offended by Santos lying or by the lies,  W, his appointees, and various elected officials said about WMDs in Iraq? 

I don't think my use of 'nearly' is rocket science here. If someone lies about their work qualifications, their education, their personal life/relationships, their heritage, their criminal history, and even the way their mother died, I think it's actually generous to use the word "nearly".

 

I'm not "offended" by Santos lying. There are certainly worse lies that have occurred throughout our political history, and he's not a particularly important person in the grand scheme of things. But it's interesting that he lied about so many things, and I came here to weigh in on that specific topic, not rehash every political scandal. So I will take a page out of your book and "Mike-E" out of this conversation. 

[Mike E 11,732]

 

I was so looking forward to NIST defining an objective measurement unit of lying that thus far eludes Chest.

 

It seems like I am the only one who wants to weaponize lying starting with Santos.  
 

 Doesn’t seem like we will get there.  

That which is measured improves. That which is not degraded. 

 

And so the  result is 

Santos, who  took it to the next level, even if we struggle to objectively define that level (but have we actually tried?).  
 

The 2020s are an amazing decade. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dashinka 24,109]

15 hours ago, laylalex said:

I didn't actually say he shouldn't be seated, because under House rules he can be seated. The rules are the rules and that is that. I am actually trying to keep this focused on Santos rather than looking at what other people have done, so I'm not going to address Lindsay Graham or Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden. But I think the big thing here is that he was indicted for check fraud in Brazil and skipped out on it before the case could go forward. That says a lot about character and fitness to serve. Are there other members of Congress who have been indicted and then evaded prosecution for fraud? I honestly don't know. But to me, that IS a big deal. Others may disagree. 

 

We can say Biden lied about this or Graham lied about that, but I disagree that there is no difference between big and small lies. Lying about finishing college is kind of meaningless if you can do the job, and there's no requirement to have a degree. Lying about your expertise when you're leading people to believe that your expertise will help you be a more effective representative, yeah, I think that's more meaningful. Lying about your mom dying in 9/11 or your employees being gunned down in a mass shooting are just dumb lies, which point to someone who's, well, kind of dumb. Evading prosecution after you have confessed to a crime and then not telling your electorate about it, that's a big lie because it goes to character.

 

Hold everyone to account, absolutely. But we don't need to be nihilists about it.

If not nihilists how does one quantify one lie over another?  

[TBoneTX 44,669]

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

an objective measurement unit of lying

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[Boiler 44,855]

The way I look at is that George is a 2 year non entity, I would not know who he was if it was not for this, I was looking for him during the coverage of the votes yesterday but did not see him.

 

So the sheer quantity of his lies fall into the amusing category.

 

Now qualitative in in my opinion is a factor of power so Biden for example might not have the quantity but is far more significant.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Boiler

[Dashinka 24,109]

17 minutes ago, Boiler said:

The way I look at is that George is a 2 year non entity, I would not know who he was if it was not for this, I was looking for him during the coverage of the votes yesterday but did not see him.

 

So the sheer quantity of his lies fall into the amusing category.

 

Now qualitative in in my opinion is a factor of power so Biden for example might not have the quantity but is far more significant.

I think Biden's quantity of lies is pretty big, and the one thing he does is he keeps repeating the same lies using the George Costanza strategy of 'it's not a lie, if you (he) believes it'.

 

13 hours ago, Mike E said:

If it was the big  thing why not lead with it in your OP?

But if is an issue for a Brazil, they can try to extradite him. Except that because a Brazil’s constitution doesn’t allow it to extradite its own citizens to other countries, the Brazil / U.S. extradition treaty doesn’t allow Santos to be extradited.  Because America does reciprocity. 
 

https://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/brazil1.pdf

 

So given Santos is innocent until proven guilty, and given he isn’t going to trial, the check fraud allegation is a nothing burger. 
 

And after that there is nothing left. 
 

Unless we want to weaponize politicians lying.  

And I do want to weaponize it.

 

Do you?

 

I agree, let's weaponize political lies, we need more impeachments.

 

2 hours ago, beloved_dingo said:

I don't think my use of 'nearly' is rocket science here. If someone lies about their work qualifications, their education, their personal life/relationships, their heritage, their criminal history, and even the way their mother died, I think it's actually generous to use the word "nearly".

 

 

Are you referring to Santos, or Biden?  I guess with Biden it was how his first wife died, but other than that, pretty much the same.

[Mike E 11,732]

6 minutes ago, Boiler said:

The way I look at is that George is a 2 year non entity

 Democrats are hurt that the red wave did in fact happen in NY State and they were  caught undressed in Santos’s district. Nancy done messed up here when she didn’t spend enough  PAC money to support Santos’s opponent (whom no one can remember).  Nancy’s famous arrows in her quiver (made in 1669 as a birth gift from the Mohawks) misfired again. 
 

Democrats should easily win this seat back in 2024.  I say “should” because there is no such thing as bad publicity and all it takes is for a skilled political operator to reframe Santos as a sympathetic victim. 

 

And then in 2032, after the next census, the seat will just go away and move to Florida. 

[Dashinka 24,109]

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

 Democrats are hurt that the red wave did in fact happen in NY State and they were  caught undressed in Santos’s district. Nancy done messed up here when she didn’t spend enough  PAC money to support Santos’s opponent (whom no one can remember).  Nancy’s famous arrows in her quiver (made in 1669 as a birth gift from the Mohawks) misfired again. 
 

Democrats should easily win this seat back in 2024.  I say “should” because there is no such thing as bad publicity and all it takes is for a skilled political operator to reframe Santos as a sympathetic victim. 

 

And then in 2032, after the next census, the seat will just go away and move to Florida. 

Elizabeth Warren's family?