comment: >
  
  Shit I’ll run and lie my way to office. Free ponies for everyone!
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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Every Republican is a George Santos.  They're all a bunch of fucking liars. >
  
  We already have….Donald J Trump, biggest lair in US Political History. >
  
  George Santos is not original. Whatever he is, it’s a byproduct of modern conservative hypocrisy. >
  
  This is how we turn into russia >
  
  It’s called a reference check. How the hell did he get the Republican nomination without a fucking reference check at some point during the process? >
  
  I'm willing to lie about my entire existence to be elected as a Republican just so I could caucus with the Democrats on everything. Just call me Jorge Santanos. >
  
  Considering the actual legal requirements, then yeah since being elected is a popularity contest requiring no limits on lying. >
  
  Sinema is the same as Santos.
  We're already seeing the politicians who have no integrity only grift. >
  
  “the same”
  No >
  
  Only if media don't do their job.
  Only if political opponent doesn't do their job. >
  
  Only if voters care about the lies too. Voters may not care that I'm lying about being present for all discussions that lead to the writing of the U.S Constitution and know first hand what the Founders intended when the 2nd Amendment was enacted, so long as my lies match with what voters want to hear. >
  
  Not sure why you mention 2nd Amendment.   In regard to background facts on candidates, they can only lie like Santos if the media does not look into their background or their political opponent does not look into their background. >
  
  Background facts on candidate is only a first step. Background facts on candidates can be unimportant to some voters. Voters can have a good or bad feeling about a candidate, their intuition is telling them to vote or not vote for a candidate, or hold onto the hope this candidate will follow through when elected regardless of the lies. As long as enough voters are willing to vote for known liars, more people like George Santos will get elected, and exposing their lies will not be enough. >
  
  
  Background facts on candidate is only a first step.
  
  It is the step in this topic. >
  
  He has a face that screams “punch me in the face”. I wish one of his constituents would. >
  
  This shit wouldn’t happen if we had news agencies that did their jobs and did some investigating prior to elections >
  
  Sinema was not that different. She pretended to be a progressive and then dropped that identity altogether when she got in office. She at least created a façade that would stand up against superficial scrutiny. Santos didn't even bother with doing that. >
  
  This is false
  Sinema never lied like this >
  
  That's the point. She was pretending to be something she wasn't to create a persona. Santos went a step further. He didn't even bother pretending; he just created his back story out of thin air. >
  
  Santos is a total fraud
  Yes it is different 
  The “both sides” argument doesn’t fly anymore >
  
  Sinema is a fraud too. A total fraud. But she took the time to build a back story that was convincing. Santos just made up his entire history. 
  They are both on the same side. I don't know what you're talking about. This doesn't have anything to do with party. Santos saw how easy it was, and how gullible Republican voters are, and just made up his story without even bothering to do any of it. >
  
  “They are both on the same side”
  Uh, no. Sinema still votes for our judges
  Your argument is incorrect >
  
  Maybe but I feel like he could have been stopped in his tracks if his opponent bothered to do even the bare minimum opposition research >
  
  I disagree. Donald Trump. Roy Moore who almost won - eventually Republicans regained the seat with a football coach. Matt Gaetz. Ted Cruz. Lauren Boebert. Greg Abbott. Hershel Walker came pretty close.
  There is plenty of evidence that shows that Republican voters are more than willing to elect liars/frauds, even with damning evidence of it being the case. They vote Party purity over values, all the damn time. >
  
  I do not give a single shit about this randall from monsters inc looking freak.. every single headline is about this man, and hes loving it im sure. We can stop now. >
  
  This is a bit different as it isn't about him, it is about the faults in the system, what the future holds if nothing is done to correct it and possible solutions.
  Edited for autocorrect that was incorrect. >
  
  Shit I’ll run and lie my way to office. Free ponies for everyone! >
  
  Worst case scenario is he serves out his term and loses re-election in two years. >
  
  The future of conservative American politics. Lmao >
  
  More than anyone--,Santos himself-- probably can't/couldn't believe he won in November 2022.   He was probably amazed that--for all his BSing--he actually won and never got fully investigated. >
  
  My guess is he wasn't trying to win. Seems like him and his team were just trying to steal as much money for themselves as possible, and were barely trying to run a real campaign. The sad part is he probably would have gotten away with it if he lost too. >
  
  Wake up everyone there’s a whole group of men there Mexico gonna build a wall and pay for it what do you think it all started do you see Republicans covering it up any or want anything to do with having Him even investigated >
  
  There exists a finite number of personality types, so the answer is of course yes. Punters want to know when that is going to happen.
  And fuck that guy and the party he rode in on. >
  
  You mean another Trump? Trump lied and embellished and gas lighted everything... Santos is not new. He wouldn't have ever made it here in the first place without Trump >
  
  If Santos is allowed to stay in office, Republicans will have zero motivation to ever tell the truth again. Every single word out of their mouths will need to be scrutinized and rigorously fact checked. An entirely new branch of journalism will need to be created. >
  
  This is going on and has been for years. >
  
  The fact that the GOP knew, but did absolutely nothing because he was favored to win. Tells me there's probably a few more Santos we dont know about. The GOP only cares about winning. >
  
  See another one? Really? Sadly, he is not the first. There are many peas is his pod in the Republican Party. >
  
  There's probably more than a few already in office we haven't found out about yet. >
  
  I actually thought it would be hilarious if he comes out to only vote Democrat. I mean he has hasn’t stood by any other lie he told so why stay republican? >
  
  People vote for party, not the candidate. The 2022 election has highlighted this. >
  
  He’s the logical next low for the Republican mainstream. Give it an election cycle or two and most will be like him. >
  
  Future republicans will 10000% use this as a strategy for getting into office. When your party has a lust for power and zero morality, this is a guaranteed outcome. Even more so since he was sworn in to congress and faces no chance of an expulsion vote. >
  
  You’re exposed, Santos! You best step-off, Ghostcrawler. >
  
  Make lying wrong again. >
  
  We'll see a civil war if nothing changes, let's be real.
  You can't just keep having no consequences for integrity-defying crazy and not eventually put the country in a state of total division. >
  
  We undoubtedly will even IF something changes. The door is now open >
  
  I’m gonna try it in the next cycle >
  
  They already made a movie about a guy almost exactly like George Santos.  The 1993 comedy with Eddie Murphy called "The Distinguished Gentleman".  Eddie plays a guy with a literal conviction for passing bad checks that cons his way into congress by using the same name as the incumbent that died in office.  At least Eddie Murphy's character drew the line at fucking over kids with cancer.  Santos would have no such moral dilemmas. >
  
  You know, if the GOP is fine with lying like this, then, maybe Democrats should run Republican candidates that say and do whatever they need to to get elected, then, as soon as they are in congress just ignore it all and vote Democrat. >
  
  We will see only George Santoses. >
  
  "Nothing changes" literally means "conservatism". >
  
  Jail for him.  Stops the rest >
  
  I'm already typing up my fake resume and practicing how to imitate McCarthy's staff for donations. >
  
  It will be right around the next January 6th coup. >
  
  I would pay some random female to run for office pretending shes George Santos >
  
  Don't both political parties vet their candidates for higher office?! Whoever "vetted" Santos should be out of a job. >
  
  It’s all part of the plan >
  
  What tf do you think trump was? NOT exactly like an 80 year old version of this guy? >
  
  Why don’t we all do it? Lets just collapse the system under the unbearable weight of immense fraud? >
  
  I would be kinda funny if someone claiming to be the real George Santos, whos his doppelganger, ran against him. >
  
  Our current president is on record lying over and over again, it’s just far easier to fact check things these days fortunately. 
  This guy should be removed from his position asap. He’s a total embarrassment. >
  
  It's doubtful that Santos was the first. >
  
  The natural result of lax controls and right wing propaganda.  If you are in the GOP, and a reasonable person, your job and your constituents welfare are next.  Good luck. >
  
  Every picture I see of this dude looks like he is seconds away from puking all over himself . >
  
  Trump, Hershel Walker, MTG, Gaetz…. Etc >
  
  This was the test run - can they run someone that doesn't exist, the candidate who can be whatever or whoever their audience wants them to be. Oh, Mr. Gardiner.
  They now know that no one is actually in charge of assessing if a candidate is who they say they are, or is from the country. >
  
  Same for the trumps of the world. If nothing is done the people in power will be much more incompetent and making bad decisions for us all. Corruption, increases, etc. >
  
  I’m filing my paperwork Monday >
  
  Probably already in motion >
  
  Ya Americans can you imagine a fucking con man in congress, or (I know this is a bit fantastical) even the White House?!?!? >
  
  But is it a bad thing? Enough of this and no Republican will take office.
  Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. >
  
  Its their own fault.  They cultivated the "Democrats are always worse" feeling within their party.  That leads to not punishing bad people for their bad behavior which is like lighting off that San Diego fireworks show all at once, telling MORE bad people they can come thrive in the GOP. >
  
  Republicans already elected a pathological liar as POTUS and appointed at least 3 to SCOTUS. Why would they give up on such a proven formula for success? Can't see the Santos type going away unless Fox suddenly opts to tell the truth. >
  
  We'll see another Jan 6 if nothing changes.
  We'll see another George Santos if nothing changes.
  Thanks a lot Republicans. >
  
  I can’t wait for the docuseries, “Who is George Santos?” >
  
  Not likely, we WILL.  
  And of course, he will face zero repercussions from leadership because his replacement might diminish the power of his party in the house further and that’s more important than this guy that clearly had lied his way into the hill. >
  
  Yeah but what happens when it’s an actual factual foreign spy? >
  
  We already had and he called himself John Barron, John Miller, Carolin Gallego, David Dennison, and many more. >
  
  Calling it now:
  Santos - Verb
  To lie your way into a position. “I’m going to Santos my way into that job” >
  
  How many George Santices are too many? >
  
  Allow his donors and Democrat opponent to sue the GOP for money spent in the last campaign.  Maybe they will start properly vetting their candidates. >
  
  Isn't everyone from the GOP basically a George Santos? Maybe not as extreme but they all fabricate stuff to suit their agenda. Remember alternative facts! >
  
  George is simply being very openly Republican:  doubling down on every lie and refusing to accept responsibility.
  Edit: typo: begin->being >
  
  There's incentive for Republicans to "flood the zone with shit." The media have proven they cannot handle even a single fake candidate. If many candidates are fake, then the media can only focus on at most one or two of them. The rest will have advantages because they can make up any story they like to maximize voter appeal.
  Systems that rely on good faith are doomed to fail to bad actors. >
  
  This guy is on the verge of becoming a Chuck Norris meme, buy for fraud. >
  
  ...and he will no doubt be a Republican. >
  
  I’m a Republican and….a long standing liar…vote for me. >
  
  We've already seen two. George Santos and his buddy Tony Devolder.
  trumpian candidates are going to become the norm in the GOP. We can only hope the girdle bursts. >
  
  Anthony Devolder* >
  
  I don’t know much about this whole kerfuffle. But can we all agree, that just judging by his face. He could use a brickin? >
  
  Between Santos and the same name winner in FL I know voters are not paying attention. >
  
  Santos is just a dumber bolder Trump >
  
  I hope we see a lot more of them.
  He's a walking advertisement for the Democratic party.
  He is the walking embodiment of the modern Republican party, just a bunch of bullshit. Having McCarthy bow down to him is even better for the Democratic party. >
  
  Maybe I should just run at this point >
  
  I think that we are going to see another “George Santos” (if that even is his real name) whether of not we change election rules/laws. The way the US political parties are is that it doesn’t matter if somebody “Talented Mr Ripley” there way into being elected, just if they will vote the way the party leadership wants them to. Hell look at Kyrsten Sinema, before being elected she gave the appearance of being at least close to a progressive democrat but once elected (and more specifically in view of lobbied interest) she flipped past being centrist to being a corporate democrat (or IMO closer to a middle of the road republican).
  TLDR the system if F’d and unless the clown is indicted (or more realistically convicted) before he is able to slip away from public scrutiny than it’s open season. >
  
  I’m amazed at how many pictures exist that make this guy look like an absolute scumbag. My conclusion based on this is that he in fact is an absolute scumbag and displays it at all times via his facial expressions. >
  
  Wait, we still have faith in the US government? I thought we were under the agreement that it’s the global laughing stock for a reason, and that reason being because we’re so soft on insurrectionists that we actively allow them to hold their positions in the house and senate. >
  
  Trump? >
  
  I think more people are terrified of having another Biden >
  
  Why? Biden saved the country from the orange fascist cult >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Every Republican is a George Santos.  They're all a bunch of fucking liars. >
  
  We already have….Donald J Trump, biggest lair in US Political History. >
  
  George Santos is not original. Whatever he is, it’s a byproduct of modern conservative hypocrisy. >
  
  This is how we turn into russia >
  
  It’s called a reference check. How the hell did he get the Republican nomination without a fucking reference check at some point during the process? >
  
  I'm willing to lie about my entire existence to be elected as a Republican just so I could caucus with the Democrats on everything. Just call me Jorge Santanos. >
  
  Considering the actual legal requirements, then yeah since being elected is a popularity contest requiring no limits on lying. >
  
  Sinema is the same as Santos.
  We're already seeing the politicians who have no integrity only grift. >
  
  “the same”
  No >
  
  Only if media don't do their job.
  Only if political opponent doesn't do their job. >
  
  Only if voters care about the lies too. Voters may not care that I'm lying about being present for all discussions that lead to the writing of the U.S Constitution and know first hand what the Founders intended when the 2nd Amendment was enacted, so long as my lies match with what voters want to hear. >
  
  Not sure why you mention 2nd Amendment.   In regard to background facts on candidates, they can only lie like Santos if the media does not look into their background or their political opponent does not look into their background. >
  
  Background facts on candidate is only a first step. Background facts on candidates can be unimportant to some voters. Voters can have a good or bad feeling about a candidate, their intuition is telling them to vote or not vote for a candidate, or hold onto the hope this candidate will follow through when elected regardless of the lies. As long as enough voters are willing to vote for known liars, more people like George Santos will get elected, and exposing their lies will not be enough. >
  
  
  Background facts on candidate is only a first step.
  
  It is the step in this topic. >
  
  He has a face that screams “punch me in the face”. I wish one of his constituents would. >
  
  This shit wouldn’t happen if we had news agencies that did their jobs and did some investigating prior to elections >
  
  Sinema was not that different. She pretended to be a progressive and then dropped that identity altogether when she got in office. She at least created a façade that would stand up against superficial scrutiny. Santos didn't even bother with doing that. >
  
  This is false
  Sinema never lied like this >
  
  That's the point. She was pretending to be something she wasn't to create a persona. Santos went a step further. He didn't even bother pretending; he just created his back story out of thin air. >
  
  Santos is a total fraud
  Yes it is different 
  The “both sides” argument doesn’t fly anymore >
  
  Sinema is a fraud too. A total fraud. But she took the time to build a back story that was convincing. Santos just made up his entire history. 
  They are both on the same side. I don't know what you're talking about. This doesn't have anything to do with party. Santos saw how easy it was, and how gullible Republican voters are, and just made up his story without even bothering to do any of it. >
  
  “They are both on the same side”
  Uh, no. Sinema still votes for our judges
  Your argument is incorrect >
  
  Maybe but I feel like he could have been stopped in his tracks if his opponent bothered to do even the bare minimum opposition research >
  
  I disagree. Donald Trump. Roy Moore who almost won - eventually Republicans regained the seat with a football coach. Matt Gaetz. Ted Cruz. Lauren Boebert. Greg Abbott. Hershel Walker came pretty close.
  There is plenty of evidence that shows that Republican voters are more than willing to elect liars/frauds, even with damning evidence of it being the case. They vote Party purity over values, all the damn time. >
  
  I do not give a single shit about this randall from monsters inc looking freak.. every single headline is about this man, and hes loving it im sure. We can stop now. >
  
  This is a bit different as it isn't about him, it is about the faults in the system, what the future holds if nothing is done to correct it and possible solutions.
  Edited for autocorrect that was incorrect.