comment: >
  
  There are many non-election related government forms one might need to fill out, some of which are from states and some of which are from federal agencies which may not take too kindly to leaving off alias information on said forms.
context: I think we need to take a DNA swab on this guy, run his fingerprints, check for passports, ID cards, and see what lurks behind any National info he has like SSN. >
  
  Minus the DNA testing, you’d think the other stuff should just be standard protocol if you are going to be in the type of position he is. I’ve had to undergo multiple background checks, drug tests, etc just to get licensed and to work in a healthcare setting. Why aren’t our government officials held to even higher standards? We absolutely need to know who they are and they should be free of any shady backgrounds before they are even cleared to run for office on a state or national level. >
  
  Silly cactus.   Do you realize what would happen if we seriously required our leadership including the person who occupies arguably the most powerful position on earth to be held to the average working person's standards for employment?  Their son-in-law wouldn't be able to make shady multi billion dollar deals.   
  .
  Last week I posted a comments similar to yours about getting things in writing and being held to the same standards the working class is held to.  I'd love to have every member of Congress apply for a regular job that requires background, credit, and security checks along with drug testing.   I suspect a whole bunch of folks couldn't get hired in nongrifting jobs.
  I'm done with my speech now.  Thank you for being such a nice cactus and listening to me rant.  :) >
  
  Your comment raises a good point. I want elected officials to pass frequent drug tests. >
  
  Several years ago there was some reporting that Washington D.C. has the highest rate of binge drinking and alcohol misuse even though members of Congress supposedly has a slightly lower percentage of reported alcoholism than the nation.  Some members have opened up about being a recovering alcoholic or addict.  I suspect those numbers are higher. I'm not interested in anyone's personal private medical struggles, but addiction could be problematic in many ways including security.  Privacy is important, but standards we all have should also apply. >
  
  No privacy allowed for public representatives.
  It's the price of being a servant of the public. >
  
  Yeah.  It does feel disingenuous when a secret alcoholic or other addict votes against programs that could help the average person who doesn't have access to financial and medical resources these folks have including keeping their job or their home.  Most of us lose our jobs which torpedoes the rest of our lives if we show up drunk or fail a drug test.  Then again full disclosure might not be a bad thing. >
  
  Watch this guy be a full blown foreign plant and the GOP give him unadulterated access to classified material because McCarthy needs the vote. >
  
  I mean we basically had 4 years of that so it's part of the plan now. >
  
  It’s a feature, not a bug >
  
  “I lie constantly”
  Ohhh?
  “—to stick it to the libs.”
  praise the lord >
  
  This footage probably came from a political tracker, a dangerous, important, underpaid, and under-appreciated position that I've done myself. >
  
  Can you provide more insight into what someone in this role actually does? I’ve never heard of it before >
  
  
  political tracker
  
  From a quick google search, its a person who's job is to follow the opposing candidate and record everything they say and do, I would presume for soundbites that can be used against them. >
  
  This is correct, and includes digital tracking, so things like podcast and radio appearances get recorded online by trackers, and all of this footage gets catalogued so people can pull it up later, like for this story. >
  
  Thank you for expanding on that.  I just did a quick search because I didn't know what a tracker was either. >
  
  He fits right in with Trump and his gang. Lying is the number one reason they attract one another! >
  
  The Republicans that don't like him aren't mad because he lied either. They are mad because he's making them look bad. >
  
  I think it would be easier to just report on the times George Santos told the truth. >
  
  Ive keep track. Here is the list...    
  1...    
  2...     
  3... >
  
  On a very cold day one time he did say "It is a bit chilly out today".  He only lies MOST of the time.  No one has a perfect record.  The truth will slip in there occasionally. >
  
  And yet if he told me the sky was blue I'd still have to go outside to check >
  
  It would honestly make me doubt the existence of the sky >
  
  
  Pro-Trump LGBTQ event
  
  Wait what? >
  
  Gays can be racist. Go look at grindr. 
  
  a gay >
  
  
  Gays can be racist.
  
  I know. What I mean is most of the Republican circus are homophobic, so how in the fack are there still a Pro Trump/Republican LGBT wing? This is like Jews for Hitler kind of shit. >
  
  They tolerate a few gays and bipoc people so they can claim they don't hate gays and bipoc people but they really do. >
  
  Yep, can confirm, my lesbian Aunt is still fully supportive of Trump. So she's "one of the good ones" to them. 
  Although she'd probably never join a gay group for Trump, that might be seen as a weakness. 
  "it's ok if you're a republican" comes in to play 
  Black republican: one of the good ones 
  Gay republican: one of the good ones
  Hollywood celebrity, but conservative: make him president! 
  Embezzling funds: smart businessman 
  Kicking puppies: helping to control the animal population
  Being a traitorous rat, following Russia's orders: great diplomat >
  
  Let me guess, she says that there are "valid criticisms" of the LGBTQ movement and will criticise other gay people for "making it their identity" or being too visibly queer? >
  
  Some of the most hateful and bigoted anti LGBT people I've met have been members of our own community. There's a lot of racism, white privilege, classism, and transphobia in the normal ongoings and community events, and there's active attempts by the wealthy whites who funded the legal side of the push for gay marriage to pull the ladder up behind them and leave everyone else behind because their marriages, and asset protections  granted by it, they believe to be safe. >
  
  I have lesbian friends that are anti-trans. It surprised me. >
  
  There's definitely an undercurrent of "they are bringing us down, don't lump us in with them" between the gay rights movement and transgender people. The idea being that trans people are just too abnormal for society in general to accept, so it makes it harder to gain any ground when you have to include them. Thankfully it's not the majority anymore, but it was the more common sentiment in the 70s-90s. Sylvia Rivera - one of the original voices of the movement and a veteran of the Stonewall riots - was pushed out by the general gay community. She did tons of advocacy work for the gay and trans community (and various other self-identifications, trans wasn't as much of a common term at the time and Sylvia herself identified using different terms throughout her life) and fought for trans youth rights, but she was discouraged from attending Pride, not allowed to speak at the event, and cut out of negotiations for trans rights in the gay rights movement. They felt that it would be harder to get a law passed protecting gay rights if trans rights were included, so trans rights were dropped and the gay rights movement carried on. 
  Now the overall LGBTQ+ community is generally more inclusive and accepting, with a lot more identities and preferences viewed on a spectrum rather than black or white it's kind of counterintuitive to exclude a group for being "too different" or whatever. But they're out there. "Drop the T" has been going on since 2015 - a movement to try to separate transgender people from the gay community. On the surface the argument is that sexual orientation and gender identity are entirely different matters and therefore need different types of advocacy and priorities. However, I've never seen any of those groups say "Trans people are great, we're just focused on our own thing" usually they follow up with a great big heap of transphobia and advocate for things like conversion therapy. It's clearly not a matter of "We can support each other while working separately" it's "I don't want you in my group because I don't think you deserve the same rights I do." >
  
  Along similar lines, folks have been trying to push for a trans-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act since the 1970's. Some of it's objectives have succeeded, but we're still not there yet.  
  And even when they tried to cut trans people out of the legislation entirely, and pushed solely for rights for LGB folks, that didn't pass, either.
  People need to remember that we stand together or we sink in pieces. >
  
  I wouldn’t be surprised to find out he isn’t even a US citizen >
  
  George Santos is starting to look completely absurd >
  
  Starting? >
  
  I know we made the “Santos doesn’t answer when called because that’s a fake name” joke during the House Speaker election, but I can’t believe we were basically right. >
  
  Oh Jesus you're right... Holy shit I didn't think about that but yeah that would explain it! >
  
  This guy is a true George Costanza. If you believe your own lies, they're not lies. >
  
  Worlds are colliding! >
  
  It’s all pipes!! >
  
  George is getting upset! >
  
  There are government forms requiring you to list your aliases or names you've gone by. If he hasn't listed Anthony Devolder on forms filled out after that event there might be penalties that don't need the Speaker of the House's concurrence on. >
  
  That mildly worded letter from the FEC is going to scare the bejesus out of him.