comment: >
  
  Pretending that Santos isn’t somewhat normal for the Right these days is problematic.  The 24 hour network of lies has already been a staple of the right for over 2 decades now.  One of the differences with Trump was he coordinated directly with Fox so they could execute their lies on multiple fronts.  
  Unless there is some sort of revolution within the right where its suddenly seized by a bunch of politicians with scruples, nothing is changing.
context: Does the media forget that George Santos was preceded by trump? trump is just as much of a criminal and fraud if not more. >
  
  I actually think George has Trump beat on the breadth of lies. >
  
  
  Actually, looking at the list of accusations, ~all backed up by evidence against both persons, I wound have to say that Trump takes the prize for breadth of lies.
  
  In fairness I don't believe George Santos has received one hundredth the coverage and investigation as Donald Trump, it's not a lack of lies it's a lack of getting caught.
  And that's totally fair, Trump's older and became the friggin president, Santos is some jackass house rep who I'd bet money on being out in 2 years time. >
  
  He already said he won’t run again, but that’s just a lie to get people off his back. >
  
  I could believe it, if only because I don't believe he has a snowball's chance in hell at winning reelection after being exposed on this level of fraud 
  If he wasn't primaried he'd be knocked out in the general. >
  
  Normal checks and balances were not adequate; they are not formal, they are not funded, nor are they mandatory.  Media and opposition research failed to catch Santos before the election and even then, nothing would stop his candidacy save media coverage to inform voters.  Formal means need not be expansive but could be a simple as running background checks for classified materials others must pass for access.  Considering congress uses and has access to confidential, secret material without background checks, it wouldn’t be difficult to include background checks before a candidate can run for office or at least before they are installed.   It would be nice to know for example, if a candidate including presidential had close relations with foreign powers, including and especially financial interests.
  ^
  
  The big question is, how could someone get to such an elevated position without his lies being exposed? The answer resides in a unique combination of social and economic factors particular to this moment in history and is evident beyond the political scene.
  Part of the reason that Santos was successful in his subterfuge is because of the erosion of newspapers in the United States in recent years — specifically the decline of local newspapers.
  
  …..
  
  Long Island’s North Shore Leader, a survivor of sorts in this depressing landscape, actually raised some important concerns about Santos. But because these newspapers have been marginalized, the Leader didn’t have the budget to dig in, as the New York Times did after Santos was elected. The Times, for its part, has a separate City section that might have caught up with Santos’ many fibs, but it has become, in many ways, a national paper with more limited local coverage.
  
  ….
  
  With Santos, even some limited human intelligence gathering would have revealed someone who failed to pay back loans and had a loose relationship with the truth, to say the least.
  
  …
  
  Both political parties would be well-served by a program to streamline elements of opposition research to give candidates and their teams a template to work from. These should include all the elements of public records research that are warranted — confirming educational backgrounds, civil and criminal checks, asset searches — and should be combined with investigators asking questions about a candidate and the various claims they’ve made about themselves and other aspects of their personal lives.
  
  Article continues... >
  
  Except opposition research did catch some of the issues. Media just didn't care. And the candidate dropped it rather than pushing more about it. >
  
  
  Media just didn't care.
  
  “The response we got back pretty universally was they just didn’t have the personnel, the time or the money to do it,” Mr. Zimmerman said, referring to the publications the campaign contacted. “One person said to me, there are 60 to 80 crazy people running, we can’t investigate them all.” >
  
  While that may be true for bigger organizations I can't imagine a smaller/more local one wouldn't want to run with it. Although local media has largely disappeared as well. >
  
  Another George Santos? 
  Remember in 2016 when we elected as President the most laughably transparent con man on the face of the earth? >
  
  Are you referring to John Barron? >
  
  Zaphod Beeblebrox? >
  
  Eh, he's just this guy, you know? >
  
  If this is allowed it's a giant middle finger to voters. At this point, what's to stop anyone from claiming all sorts of outlandish things to get elected. The GOP doesn't care because they have given up trying to win legit. >
  
  Like being a successful businessman? >
  
  Trump's own record at Wharton is a fabrication.  This is going on and has been for years. >
  
  Imho pushing trump was a way to normalize choosing identity over facts and qualifications. >
  
  Trump was the final result of that trend. >
  
  Perhaps, but as slimy as Trump is his stuff actually existed.
  Hotels, casinos, steaks.. all garbage or scams or both, but they did exist.
  Inventing 100% of your history from thin air and getting elected is another level in my opinion >
  
  They existed, but are all built scams.  Trump does lie about lots of stuff though. 
  Trump uses the smallest of truth to hide the larger lie.  Santos is just the next evolution. >
  
  An entirely new branch of journalism will need to be created. >
  
  Or a revival of older standards for arrest and detention. >
  
  This guy looks to be cut from the same cloth that frat bro fuckface Madison Cawthorn was from. >
  
  Santos is the direct product of years of lies and lack of accountability for our leaders. We saw a Trump presidency that included an attempted overturning of our government based on nothing but bullshit originating from Trump. If nothing changes Santos will be president in the near future.
  But since Santos has the full backing of GOP congressional leaders we're already fucked. >
  
  he looks different in every single pic i’ve seen of him. >
  
  His face is even lying!! >
  
  I know someone who did an internship at the FBI and they needed their entire life reviewed. Almost everyone they knew was interviewed before they could get accepted… we have the means to prevent it. >
  
  Merrick Garland did nothing to Trump, we got Santos. 
  So of course he is balls to the wall on Biden. 
  We will definitely get more like Santos. I should try it myself. Thanks Merrick. >
  
  Since he didn’t got to the schools he said he went to… where DID he go?  Russia? >
  
  Its-all-good-man, he attended by snail mail, the University of American Samoa.  /s >
  
  There are plenty like him in office.  The reason they won’t kick him out is because it sets a precedent that can be used to remove the other liars.  They’ll protect him to protect themselves.
  At some point the voters need to wake up, stop caring about D or R and say “I want honest elected officials and I’m willing to clean house to get them” >
  
  We only saw him because of trump and palin were allowed to exist politically >
  
  We all know politicians lie but when Trump rode down the golden escalator and started speaking hate and lies almost immediately, it opened the floodgates for a percentage of our population who were thrilled by his racist rhetoric. 
  By the GOP excusing this behavior and a high enough percentage of voters either condoning this behavior or not educating themselves, it allowed George Santos and MAGA Republicans to get elected.  
  “The real reason that we can’t have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse: You cannot post … “Thou shalt not lie” in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment.” George Carlin >
  
  American democracy is just circling the drain... >
  
  Why run for office when you can fund a puppet? >
  
  It’s interesting to me, I would think the RNC has some responsibility to vet him. He’s running as a member of their private club. I wonder if constituents in his area can sue them. >
  
  Santos is another Trump.  It did not matter to the Right that Trump lied about his business acumen, his ability to fix health care, or his deal making talent, all of which have been proven false.  They continue to support him.  In short, the Right does not care about the applicant's résumé or references.  All that matters is the cover letter and the interview.  
  Santos knows that as does Boebert, Taylor-Greene, and the people who supported Walker in his bid for the US Senate. >
  
  Expect a multitude of them then.  Only two ways republicans can win.  By fraud.  And by fraud. >
  
  In Canada, this type of behaviour would result in Santos being kicked out of caucus and forced to sit as an independent. Is this possible in the US legislature? Seems like a pretty obvious move. >
  
  The legislature can even vote to remove him from the body entirely if they wish. But they don't wish.