>

Crazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.
Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.
His campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.
All this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want. >

Fines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do. >

Income Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws. >

This would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is. >

Mate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story. >

Yeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable. >

That's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.
The correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.
It's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%. >

Speeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income.  Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000. >

I just made a comment about this, specifically citing Finland. >

I honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet. >

He will be soon. In Brazil. >

For completely unrelated crimes. >

Sure, but I only care about the end result. How we get from point A to point B doesn't really matter other than the embarrassment that America is so corrupt that it has to rely on another country to take out its trash. >

Especially when that country is Brazil. Let’s be real, we all knew American exceptionalism was a lie, we just didn’t know it would be proven so conclusively over the last 5-7 years. >

America is exceptional, in lots of ways. Some of them are even positive. >

The fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become. >

Great, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office.  Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam.  At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government.  
Since I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.
If not then why the hell not.  
Standards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. 
Standards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.
Are we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776? >

Been saying this, almost verbatim, for decades...makes no sense that we don't have updated criteria and standards for assuming public office. >

The challenge is making a fair test, if implemented. A lot of exams, though they serve a purpose, end up becoming a resources game, where the well connected, privileged, and rich dominate the scene. There are numerous candidates in office who came from less fortunate backgrounds, didn't have English as their first language, or grew up in debt, yet were or are effective officials for those who elected them.
It is a difficult balance because historically we have created threshold tests before, and they were exploited to supress the lower classes or minorities. >

I don't disagree with that, but even before getting to implement tests, we should have BASIC criteria to meet, that is higher than the current requirements, before you can assume office. And I mean BASIC
You want to be President? Great! But being 35, a natural-born citizen, and a non-felon... IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH to run the most powerful country in the world.
You want to be a Congressperson? Awesome! If you lie about you background, your YOUR CANDIDACY SHOULD INVALIDATED (as in, you are taken OFF the ballot, not asked to resign after being elected). You lie on your resume or application anywhere else, you face consequences.
Higher standards and criteria. That's what I'm talking about. Test or no test >

The fact that the last president couldn't get a security clearance but did get nuke codes is fucking insane >

I love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy. >

Like Santorum. >


santorum (n)
the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex

Lol >

Impeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices. >

The house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior. >

Under this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't? >

Depends on how well they know bird law >

Oh my God! Nobody look!! >

Did you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle. >

The fact I can't tell an Uncle Jack quote from a former president quote, is sad... >

Lol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker >

I don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act >

I think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it >

Santos L. Halper >

It's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!< >

Santos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy