>

This guy's giving Walter Mitty a bad name.
Ironic that this guy is the antithesis of every value that Republicans profess to hold. >

In reality he’s perfect, he’s a liar and a grifter with no morals. >

But he's gay so you know most of his voters were holding their noses as they ticked his box >

I don't know, I bet there was a lot of them already excited to say "I can't be homophobic. I voted for a gay guy in 2022." >

Outwardly, yes. It's just a card to play in that case >

Oh 100% just a card they think means something when it doesn't >

doublethink i guess >

At this point I'm just waiting for the sexual predator accusations. We've hit almost everything else on "republican bingo". >

This guys gonna fuck around and end up a Republican president if he doesn’t quit lying! >

I’ll throw myself in front of a speeding train if this shitbag winds up being our first gay president. >

Me thing Donald Trump proved to the world is the saying that “in America anyone can become President”.   At this point who COULDN’T be President? >

The communists, socialists, etc. still probably wouldn't get too far. >

A literal seditionist made it 4 years and hasn’t been charged with a coup for over two years. >

Yet Bernie and all the other more progressive dems are still the bad guys. You see my point? I can't tell you how many people I've talked to that said they would choose him over the other, and they think they're centrists. It's maddening, and then when you try to point out the propaganda, they say it's not propaganda, and I'm just crazy. >

oh this just keeps getting better. This plus the Brazil investigation is just -- classic GOP. >

How did none of this come up when Republicans vetted him as a candidate? 
I went through a more rigorous vetting process just getting a job waiting tables. >

My guess is the GOP cares more about if you'll tow the party line and push the rhetoric you're told over what you actually stand for, if you buy it all for real (like MTG) that's an even bigger plus.. If you look at it like they are trying to find the political equivalent to late night sales show hosts their candidates lately make way more sense. >

I agree that they prioritize toeing* the party line, but wouldn’t they vet candidates anyway? 
Even if they’re willing to support a candidate with skeletons in their closet, they’d be better off knowing what the skeletons are so that they have a plan for if they’re exposed.
*I had to look up if it’s towing or toeing. Apparently it’s toeing, which seems wrong but whatever. >

I mean logically yes, but all evidence points to the contrary. >

Santos needs to be extradited to Brazil, where the criminal charges against him have been revived. >

What the hell could be do to disgrace himself further? Is someone going to call the fashion police on the man? Will Sting be watching him?
Edit: someone did call the fashion police on him. Crew neck sweater over a shirt and tie today on the floor. >

Pawning a cellphone definitely says “drug addiction” >

Especially an iPhone.  Lucky to get $50 for one at a pawn shop without the password. >

Pawn shops are just dreadful though. I don’t know if they’re even worse or less worse over there but like 6 years ago my mum was in a desperate situation just before Christmas and I wasn’t in a position where I could help her out and she decided to pawn or sell her 24ct gold engagement ring with a £2,000 diamond in it. They offered her like £35. She was outraged and when asked them how they figured that, especially as they had just indeed confirmed it was a real diamond of that carat, they just laughed at her and said “you need the money though or you wouldn’t be here. What are you going to do?”
Unfortunately she came out with a few racial slurs in her enraged tirade but I did agree with the level of outrage. These places are so cruelly manipulative. >

They’re just as bad here.   I was in a pinch and brought in a $1,800 bicycle.  They offered me $40.  I tried my $3,200 camera next.  They refused because I had no charger for it.   The camera had no charger; it came with a  USB charging cord.  Bastards. >

I sold a violin and a ~$400 hydroponics system for about $70 bucks. It was that or not eat. >

idk if you guys know this or not but a lot of pawn shops will loan you money with items as collateral. they take a percentage on payback, so a lot of times you can get a little more than they'd pay outright and you can go get your item back. >

So... you're telling me Santos actually is Gay? >

ELI5 How do Republicans accept his lifestyle choice? Surely having a relationship with a man is ungodly, against the bible, sinful etc etc? >

They do not. I’ve known quite a few religious conservatives. At best, they try to be nice and not say mean things to your face. I’m straight so I’ve gotten an impression of how they are in private. >

Yeah, my mother in law recently discovered that my daughter (16 next week) likes a girl, and I could tell she was trying to be positive (“they look cute!”), but then the next week she’ll be ranting about all the rainbows on kids clothes and that the gays are trying to co-opt our children. It’s exhausting. >

Tbf here that’s at least a sign that she’s willing to do the right thing for her family which is a sign that she might maybe realize that she’s wrong and apply that to all facets of life instead of just the parts she doesn’t want to be excised from. Sometimes it just take personal experience to develop empathy >

Or she doesn't want her daughter to hate her and she will entrench in her belief the schools or TV made her daughter this way. One is just as likely as the other. One can hope, but I wouldn't hold my breath honestly. >

So he had a barely legal aged boyfriend and a wife.
Republican values on display. >

Where does it say barely legal boyfriend >

It's not in the linked Business Insider article, but it is in the New York Times article where the original reporting is from:

One who was close to Mr. Santos was Pedro Vilarva. Mr. Vilarva met Mr. Santos in 2014, when he was 18 and Mr. Santos was 26. Mr. Vilarva found him charming and sweet. They dated for a few months before Mr. Santos suggested they move in together. Mr. Vilarva said he felt on top of the world — even if he said he did find himself footing many of the bills. >

Oh ok…. So totally legal boyfriend / not barely legal boyfriend. >

Barely legal refers to 18 year olds. The youngest while still being legal. >

So …. legal? >

Yes, barely.
You know that adverbs exist, right? >

But legal is….. legal? 
Barely legal is a category of video not a type of bf >

What bothers me most about this George Santos story is the nearly complete silence on the part of the GOP. 
Contrast that with how the Democrats drummed Al Franken out of the party.
George Santos isn't just a dishonest politician. He's a pathological fabulist. >

Lies, cheats, steals, doesn't pay bills and doesn't do his job.  You guys in the GOP sure you don't want to run him for president?  He's more Trump Junior than Don Jr. >

Neck and neck. >

Neck and Neckless, in this case. >

That’s a huge red flag that he was addicted to and using drugs! >

How could the republicans elect such a man? Someone who lies, steals, cheats, and uses drugs? Surely they will recall such a man. >

Or make him Party Leader. He has all the qualifications on the dishonesty side. >

He was a 34 year old with a wife and a 19 year old boyfriend that he was constantly stealing from and lying to… seems like this guy is a sociopath >

It's going to be fun to watch this guy serve in congress haha >

He's probably going to do what Madison Cawthorn did when he lost reelection but for the entirety of his term. Won't bother showing up to his office or to vote but will still get a paycheck. >

I'm not sure what he will do, but it won't be this, at least not at first. Like most con men the guy is a narcissist, and won't be able to resist the opportunity for attention. He also might try to further monetize the whole thing, which would mean he has to show up for votes. After all the publicity though, I wonder what the people who funded him now expect. >

Do you think the kind of people who would vote for a George Santos would even bother to check if he actually voted on a single bill? Before him, we had whole swaths of the GOP that would vote against a bill and then go back to their constituents claiming that they delivered the thing that they voted against. >

He got hundreds of thousands of dollars from somewhere. I doubt it came from people who won't pay attention to how he votes. >

You know... until now, I wasn't sure if he really had the  right qualifications to be a Republican congressman, but now I'm sold. He'll fit in perfectly. >

They needed a new token gay now that nobody talks about Milo Yiannopoulos anymore >

They still have Lindsey Graham >

Careful, the militant moderator will ban you if your not careful about what things you say about Lindsay graham or people who are gay. >

What? >

At least One of The moderators of r/politics is really sensitive to jokes about senator graham or allusions to his sexuality. >

As bad as things have already been, to let someone into an office of such importance, based on complete lies… He completely defrauded citizens of their votes.
Not that integrity is the hallmark of people these days, but giving this guy a pass sets yet another milestone of dangerous precedent.
Scores of new criminals will push to gain power, emboldened by this strategy of completely lying about one’s past. Again, not that we live in a golden age of honesty, but hell.
Edit: By the way, this guy is just a complete and utter criminal. “Never went to work”, “…believes that Santos stole his boyfriend’s phone to pawn it.”
What damage is he going to do when he gets swore in, especially if he feels the walls closing in around him? >

They want liars, they got a liar. And they didn't even know yet how much of a liar he was. They got… a pleasant surprise. >

Oh yeah. BIG red flag. If you aren't paying bills, you aren't a true American.
Who is George Santos again? >

A Trump never pays his debts. >

Didn’t have “steals iPhone” on my bingo card. >

You haven't scaled up your bingo card over the last 7 years? >

This part of him is true. Saw him on Grindr, he is a messy power bottom. >

D: Messy?? >

I googled the term "messy power bottom" and found out two, well three, things. 1. Messy seems to refer to a person being emotional. 2. A power bottom is the dominant partner who is also a bottom. 3. Google offers cable management solutions for the issue of your power bottom being messy. >

that's a much better image than I was picturing. >

Were you thinking of a Bob Saget "spin art" scenario? >

Has he got kids buried in his crawlspace?  Not that (R) would be concerned... >

so sounds like a typical republican >

He’s a total sociopath. >

No wonder Republicans like him >

That Netflix is going to be nuts >

Hopefully we can make like Netflix and cancel him after 1 season. >

Hey this is a positive for George! He told the truth about something >

So a classic republican official? >

Thats drug abuser type behavior. >

This has to be the pinnacle of stupidity. On both the side of the constituents,the media and the politicans. The RNC didn't know their guy was this compromised? The media didn't vet him before he got elected? Was the R next to his name really all those voters needed to get him votes? How in the fuck did we get here? >

Santos needs to be a special envoy to Iran. Put him on the next plane …. >

This fuckin' guy. >

Trumpism101 >

More of the Republican shit show >

Well at least we know he's actually gay >

But he seems to have lied about not being gay. Right? Can't remember. >

From what I remember he said he was fully gay but had an undisclosed divorce from a wife and no history of actual boyfriends. >


stealing his phone, not paying bills, and never going to work:

He's like the perfect Republican..... >

were witnessing an elected politician that noone even googled before hand. >

So he’s worse than the “welfare” criminals the Right is always manufacturing rage over.
Steals, doesn’t work, and now wants to get a paycheck from the government. >

How long until we find out his real name? >

Lionel Hutz >

Thus guy is a real deadbeat and liar who shouldn't even be given the oath of office but will since the Republicans are allowing and accepting him. >

I genuinely don't think there is (or should be) any mechanism for him to not be seated in Congress.   He won a free and fair election.
I am looking forward to the new Speaker having to answer Santos questions every week until he resigns or gets convicted of some kind of felony. >

It's not a "free and fair election" if the voters are lied to and some unknown person puts $750K into it (Santos claimed that was his personal funds, but that's obviously bullshit).  Come on now.
The voters elected a guy who claimed to have a successful investment career & real estate business, with a business degree,  a long-term gay relationship, and enough money to give $750K to his campaign.
They got a guy who doesn't have a college degree, worked as phone support, never worked in finance, a felony charge in Brazil, a fairly recent divorce from his wife, and a series of evictions because he couldn't pay rent. >

The voters of NY-3 voted for a bullshitter who was living large on slush funds and sketchy finances.  That's on them.
People howling for some kind of way to disqualify a candidate and prevent them from taking office despite winning the election should repeat an aversive mantra:
"E-mails.  Laptop.  Birth Certificate." >

"Just because someone lied & defrauded people doesn't mean that it wasn't 'free and fair'" is a ridiculous argument.  If the dealer lied to you about the car, it's not "on you."  If a confidence trickster steals from you, you may not be able to get your money back but the confidence trickster doesn't get to say "that's on you." 
"Other people lied about things that aren't real, so you shouldn't consider something that's real and disqualifying" is ... something. Logical, it ain't. >

What constitutes a "free and fair" election is that voters were able to cast their votes and have them counted without interference from the government or a partisan actor.
Cast and counted.  That's all.
The recourse for a con or lie or fraud is at the ballot box or a vote by Congress itself.
I hope you do not want some lesser agency or entity to be able to disqualify a Member of Congress from taking office.   How far down should we go;  a County prosecutor ?  A US Attorney ?   A citizen initiative ?   A circuit court lawsuit ?
The literal J6 playbook was to shout loudly about fraud in order to use the chaos and uncertainty to force Congress into doing something extraordinary and unlawful.   That is not something that anyone who believes in democracy and good governance should want. >

The literal J6 playbook was to attempt to storm the Capitol to stop the counting of the electoral votes. No one is advocating for that.
You think a guy who two years ago was sued because he didn't pay his rent magically made $750K, which he could then loan to his own campaign? Or was there "interference from a partisan actor"? >

The liberal media tried to smear him as faux gay. Well, jokes on you liberals! He’s probably a sociopath and a compulsive liar, but he’s definitely gay! This is what winning looks like!
Edit: sarcasm. I’m being sarcastic. Sincerely fuck this guy. >

I cannot tell wtf your take is here. >

I added an edit to my comment to clarify. I always want to believe my sarcasm is clear, but the stupidity out there is so thick, I understand why it’s hard to tell if you’re looking at satire or liquid crazy. >

Lol okay thanks >

When you put your nose to the grindstone for job security. >

He looks like that really popular Snapchat filter. >

I thought he lied about being gay. He has an ex-boyfriend? >

Key word: boy. >

Not great, Bob! >

Another quality Republican😡 >

He’s perfect for politics >

Sounds like my ex. >

Republican family values. 
What are those, again? >

Wait, he's ACTUALLY gay/bi?!?! >

How low does the GOP go? They look very desperate and morally bankrupt. Who strives for this? >

How did none of this not surface before? >

I think I had a boyfriend like that too >

The most surprising part of this is the revelation that he wasn’t lying about being gay >

Every day more and more comes out about this guy - and the GOP hasn't said a word about any of it. $175,000 per year of or tax dollars is going to support him - I get the feeling we won't be getting our money's worth from that... Yeah, so this slag is going to be one of the people that is responsible for running the country - we've become a bad joke. >

If he had an outstanding warrant for a crime he committed in Brazil, did he have to disclose that to apply for citizenship? If he did, would that disqualify him for citizenship?  Here in Belgium they can deny applicants with criminal histories. >

Not sure about immigration. I do recall, while working in a government organization, of not being allowed to hire a student as an intern because he had once written a bad check to Blockbuster Video.  And this position did NOT require a full security clearance. >

Why is all of this coming out AFTER he was elected? Both sides should’ve caught this. How does this get by the rnc? How did the ads miss this? Something fishy. Looks like a new low for politics. >

Wow everything about this guy is turning out to be worse, what a shitty human being. >

It’s this guy’s nature to con people and try to take the easy way out. >

At least he has had a boyfriend. >

Doesn't matter; had sex. >

If Santos lies about virtually everything, maybe he's actually a Democrat? >

Par for the course for politicians these days >

You can't make this stuff up. >

Wow! Hope they don’t talk to my ex >

So youre saying he's a republican? We already knew that >

So tired of news about this useless turd. Please resign and go back to obscurity again so we never have to hear about you ever again. >

Ironically, George Santos is shaping up to be the least bad republican... >

Hilarious