>
I learned today that Santos stated he had brain cancer. If this is true, sorry for him but if this is not true (which I'm leaning towards given the current lies), HOLY FUCKING SHIT. The guy isn't just a liar but has no empathy for those that suffer from cancer. >

Dude is most assuredly not well.  His lying is so blatant that it has to be pathological, he needs treatment... right after his lying ass is kicked to the curb. >

So how many full terms is he gonna serve? Reminder that MTG still has a job. >

I believe his district leans slightly blue as opposed to MTG’s which has a multi digit Republican tilt
He likely wouldn’t have won had the NY Democrats not shit the bed this year >

His campaign lies are the least of the issues.
Someone want to explain how this ponzi scheming bottom feeder who kept getting evicted for not paying rent suddenly raked in millions right before being propped up as a member of Congress?
And no...  I won't take his word for it. >

Almost like he was picked for some arbitrary reason and groomed for the position by a party who's quite frankly running out of sane candidates to run, and really just need predictable votes in the seat. >

The reason being he’s gay and conservative. Their first one!! Well second. >

Is he even actually gay? >

I’ve been wondering that myself >


"BIG NEWS: I am introducing a bill to require candidate to disclose under oath their employment, educational, & military history so we can punish candidates who lie to voters about their qualifications," he wrote. "It will be called the Stop Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker (SANTOS) ACT."
“George Santos pretended to be a Ukrainian, Belgium, Brazilian, Catholic, Jew, whose mother died twice — including in 9/11, whose ancestors survived the Holocaust and whose employees died in the Pulse mass shooting and who became a millionaire overnight,” Mr Torres toldThe New York Post. “It’s absurd. It would be laughable, if it weren’t so serious.”

You've got to work HARD to get an ethics bill named after you BEFORE you even start your first term in the House!
This would also affect asshats like Majewski in Ohio who pretended he was special forces. >

This is great, but we should extend it to everything congress does. It would be cool if we made lies on the floor of the house and senate equivalent to perjury. >

Yes, Please! >

Watch Republicans start spouting off about how this is cancel culture, slippery slope, blah blah blah >

They don't need to say anything they will have the house very shortly and can just make this disappear. >

There's no way that what Santos did should be legal. We need this law yesterday. >

Trump lied just as much! >

Hence, we need this law yesterday >

God, I do love a good backronym. >

It really is cleverly done. >

I have to imagine there is some office in Washington where Congresscritters go with their bills to get a good acronym-friendly title. English Majors need to eat to, y'know! >

There is already a law like this in Oregon that makes it illegal to make false statements on a candidate's campaign literature about one's accomplishments (degrees, jobs, service, etc.).  There should be one in every state. >

I always feel like that whole "up to" part of some of these types of laws should be changed to "at least # but no more than ##." >

Fuck fines. Prison. >

If his name really is Santos. >

They should also have to forfeit whatever money was raised for their campaign. >

Triple damages are an allowed punitive measure. >

Tree law? >

Don't know. I'm a bird lawyer. >

This is crazy and scary that any liar can become a part of congress. 
Like nominees don't go through fbi or cia background checks?
It's harder to get a job at McDonald's than to get into congress! >

All the systems that are supposed to keep phonies out of office, like the press, their opponent’s op research, and voters’ own bullshit detectors, all broke down. >

This guy deceived the American public, which is illegal. Open and shut as I see it. >

A minimum of one year would be better. >

"Amid calls from democrats to step down, Santos made clear his willingness to put the past behind him, stating that he 'drank an entire fifth of Popov vodka at his cousin Keith's wedding reception when (I) was only in tenth grade,' noting his 'tolerance is crazy-high because his maternal great-grandfather was Irish'."
"Friday brought fresh trouble for the Santos team, as claims he made to fellow diners at a Queens-area Long John Silvers in 2011 are coming back to haunt him.  Chris Quesada, Santos's ride to work at the Kroger over on Larch and sometimes Magic: The Gathering nemesis told reporters that back in 2011 Santos claimed 'that as a fourth level Elven Wizard, he (Santos) could cast Fireball up to 3 times a day'."
"According to the DM's guide, Fireball can only be cast by 5th level or higher wizards, even if they are specialized in evocation."
"Santos's campaign refused to comment on the allegation." >

Given the absolutely insane level of lying from this guy, even what would normally be considered totally obvious satire should be marked with /s. >

How about when you are sworn into office, you are also sworn under oath. Any lie an elected official tells while holding office is perjury. Add that as well. >

Republicans will try to abuse this 100%.   "AOC claimed she was a bartender when her job title said barista!  LIAR!" >

Goddamn she was really a barista and not a bar tender? Heresy. >

The phrase 'up to' should not be used.  It should be 'go directly to jail, and remain there'. >

Lol you have to get elected without telling lies. Unless there is a grandfather clause the jails will be full of reps the day after it passed. >

Should pass. Won’t pass. >

But, what is truth when a large group of people can’t even agree what a verifiable fact is? 
I see this eventually backfiring at a later date. >

~250 years for this to even be floated is a bit odd - better late than never >

Zero republicans are going to go for this. >

Thats way too lenient. >

This is the type of law that if passed would only be enforced against political outsiders trying to unseat corrupt incumbents. >

Scope seems to be sufficiently narrow to avoid abuse. >

All politicians lie, a lot. >

There's a difference between not keeping a political promise, saying something that's incorrect, and blatantly lying about aspects of your personal life to gain power >

Personal life stuff is in general personal and irrelevant, otherwise you end up with endless Clintonesque witch hunts. >

It is not irrelevant, if I lied about my qualifications to a job I would get reprimanded and fired, when you're representing people, intentionally lying about your life experiences to Garner support from people is absolutely equivalent to that. You, as a politician, should not be able to just make up an entire life story for yourself, and I don't understand why you think it's okay enough to not do anything about >

Aside from the fact that lots of people get away with things like this all the time, it should be irrelevant to your job whether your grandparents were in Auschwitz and if your employer demanded proof they'd be sued. >

And if they found proof that your resume was fabricated, they’d fire you. >

We're electing criminals and fascist, honestly looks like we kind of deserve it. >

What a tremendous failure of oppo research. >

Not sure what to think of this one. Seems like it could be abused. >

I guess it would depend on the scope.

In a tweet Friday, Torres said the bill would 'require candidates to disclose under oath their employment, educational, & military history so we can punish candidates who lie to voters about their qualifications.'

I could see a narrow scope of information like this,  but could see the abuse possibility of it were more open ended. >

what would be the abuse, the truth coming out about something more mundane a candidate lied about?  They should all be transparent. >

I agree about transparency. I just could see jackass politicians trying to abuse a broad scope law by crying about every issue.  Say a politician claimed "I reduced taxes in my first term"  then opposition stats showed the opposite.   Is that a lie?  Should it be pursued for criminal fines?  Narrow scope questions like where a person went to college would be better. >


Say a politician claimed "I reduced taxes in my first term" then opposition stats showed the opposite. Is that a lie?

Given that you can define "reduced taxes" in multiple ways, I have to agree with you here.  Nearly every recent president has referred to "reduced growth of spending" as if it were an actual "reduced spending."
Everyone bends the truth and tells the truth in ways that make them look better.  We shouldn't be wasting time and money on minor violations.  
Any law like this needs to punish politicians making numerous, recurrent, egregious, and flagrant, misrepresentations of qualifications. >

As if they would hold these Republicans accountable. >

A bit late. Whoever was in charge of research needs to never work on the business again >

Motherfucker's gonna vanish like David Bowie in Fire Walk With Me. You turn around and there's three dogs in an overcoat, and New York has no 3rd distract, and 2022's not even an election year. You ask me for a hamburger. I am reborn as an ocelot. You disapprove. >

Depending on its structure and definitions, this could be a quite dangerous slippery slope and an outright violation of the 1st Amendment.
It's not illegal to tell lies- or what are arguably lies- about one's self verbally in public, or even in writing on non-official documents (i.e., where not sworn otherwise, or for financial purposes), and it shouldn't be illegal to do the same while running for office.
The truth is that the media and Santos' Democratic opposition dropped the ball on this.  The Russians and other bad people very much recognize the 1st Amendment and free-flow of ideas as a weakness in democracy's ability to defend itself, and they take advantage of it.  But the solution is to be more vigilant in our seeking of and defense of truth in the press, not to give our government more policing powers regarding truth.  It's too dangerous. >

It is illegal to lie in order to receive a material benefit. That's why fraud laws aren't a violation of the First Amendment.
Voters rely on the statements of candidates to make their voting choices, so it can easily be argued that these lies have a tangible benefit. No one wants every tiny statement of every candidate prosecuted, but there should be some mechanism to address a candidate who fabricates every single aspect of their background, qualifications and history. >


It is illegal to lie in order to receive a material benefit.

Do you have a citation for this? I think you're overstating the law. I understand you're trying to get at the idea of fraud but elections aren't commercial contracts.  It's not a workable comparison. 
It's not illegal to lie in a job interview or on a resume, per se. I'm sure that you could add things to such a situation that could then make it illegal, but people tell such lies without getting prosecuted all the time- "for material benefit," to boot, to get employed. Why? Because there's no law against it, that's why.  And that is a much closer analogy to an election than the fraud comparison you're trying to make. 
More importantly, whatever law you think could be made- however you think you're going to word it, which I'm quite sure you won't know how to do- simply isn't going to be enforceable.
It's a bad idea and there are reasons the 1st Amendment protects against ideas like that. >

Everyone justifiably hates Santos, but laws like this are silly. Its not illegal, nor can it be made to be, for a private citizen, which is what aspiring congresspeople are before actually being elected, to tell lies in public. That's free speech. Like a very basic free speech protection as well, since there are very obvious ways penalties for lying can be abused by those in charge of defining "lying." If a candidate lies about their grandparents it really is up to the media and voters ro figure out. 
Attempting to force candidates to publicly disclose employment history is also silly. First off, I dont see how that wouldn't be a compelled speech issue. Sure, employers can demand a resume but this isn't a job at Walmart. Political speech is especially protected by the courts and the constitution. Plus, this law would basically bar anyone with any negative employment history or a bad military discharge from office. You're naive if you dont think opposition media will hound on these disclosures for attack adds.
That may seem alright to you but remember poor people are more likely to have negative employment history and the military has a long and storied history of using punitive discharges to cover up abuse like rape and hazing. 
Most of the worst people in congress have squeaky clean employment histories already, because they're rich and coddled. I really can't see how a law like this wouldn't primarily harm candidates from shitty backgrounds. Which I, for one, dont like. >

So... everyone should be able to lie and cheat their way into power? >

People are allowed to lie. Or to put it better, giving the government the power to broadly jail or fine liars is bad. Sure, there are specific circumstances in contract laws and criminal investigations where lying is punishable but the whole history of those laws is chock full of debate specifically about the possibility of this having a chilling effect of free speech.
Telling lies in public is about as clear cut free speech as possible. And since anyone, even most criminals, are allowed to run for office then yes, the possibility of someone lying their way into office exists. 
There is simply no way to give the government the power to prevent a private citizen from lying to a crowd of people about his grandparents or his (fake) cancer without it inevitably becoming a bludgeon against anyone the current government doesn't like. Thats just how power works. Thats why there is a long history of courts forcing the government to justify the specific coercive abilities it wants to use and what it wants to accomplish with them. There is always a tradeoff. The tradeoff here is that anything that could have prevented Santos from getting elected could just as well be used by the people like Santos already in power to prevent their enemies form being elected. There is no such thing as a law narrow enough not to be abused, especially when it comes to curtailing rights. Like to right to run for office.
I swear, reddit really is quick to cut off its own nose in an attempt to spite every idiot of the week that pops up. If we're all worried about the encroaching authoritarianism of the Republican party it just kinda seems dumb to be handing them even more power to harm their enemies. Sure, by all means call any liar out. Produce the evidence, rake them across the coals on national television. But jail? 
This whole comment section would do that dumb surprised Pikachu face the moment a law like this is used to boot a young progressive candidate from the race (and jail or fine them) because they said they had a 3.9gpa and their records actually indicated they had a 3.89 and thus "lied," whereas the rich, right wing idiot has nothing to worry about because its his friends and supporters in charge of investigating. >

...Eh? Sure, if it were going off of hearsay and such, it would be too far of an overreach, but that's not what this potential law says. There is no "investigation". Its documents that are provided to the public.
"New York Congressman Ritchie Torres announced a bill that will force Congressional candidates to disclose their employment, educational and military history in order to ensure they can’t lie about their credentials during their campaign, "
I don't see what this issue is as we are expected to do this for any job we undertake, along with many cases, proof that this was the case. >

Yeah, but you missed the part where it said "violations of the bill, if it were to become law, would include a 100,000 dollar fine and up to a year in prison"
Which is the part I dont like.
Let me ask you this:
If Donald Trump were still president, and someone like Santos or DeSantis or any other conniving right wing ideologue was in charge of prosecuting offenders of this law, would you be absolutely sure they couldn't find a way to use it against you (if you were running for office)?
If you answer anything other than an enthusiastic yes, you see where I'm coming from. If you do answer an enthusiastic yes, well you're much more optimistic than I.
We can't fall into the habit of assuming these laws will only be used against people we agree they should be.
As the old saying goes: a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indicted a ham sandwich. Are you willing to be the ham sandwich? All they have to do is say they dont believe you submitted all your educational or employment documents, and bam! You're under investigation. Now the TV man can spam the fact you are (allegedly) a liar 24/7. And what about people who legitimately have shitty employment history? They're not even going to bother running for office now. They'd have to tell the entire US about how they got fired from taco bell at 17 or be jailed. 
And all this for what? Santos? It's not like his supporters are exactly critical of their candidates. He woulda just lied about other things and been elected anyway. Seems like a lot of risk for little reward. We're not going to legislate people into voting for better candidates. Were just going to end up narrowing the pool of "approved" candidates. >

Republicans won't vote for it... >

Say It To Me S.A.N.T.O.S.! >

It would never pass, most politicians are liars. >

Should be a % of assets or income or something, flat fines just mean they are pointless for the rich >

It’s pathetic that this appears to be necessary. It’s supposed to be the press, their opponent, and ultimately the voters’ job to tell if a candidate is a blatant phony but Trump showed the world that we can’t be trusted to do that. >

I guess I am the only one who finds this funny. Its so crazy and outlandish, and people just fell for it. Without questioning. >

As long as this couldn't be abused somehow. Apparently the bill makes them state their background under oath. Seems like it might be easier to just have a background check done or have a body research the candidate themselves. The risk is this being used as a weapon to penalize people by nitpicking their backgrounds. I suppose it depends what body is giving out the fines. >

We won't have any politicians left, if this passes. >

That acronym reminds me of my research paper writing days! Love it! >

My hat is off to whoever came up with this brilliant use of acronym :) >

Gotta love acronyms. >

I can't tell if it's a good thing or a bad thing that so many laws these days have names that are basically memes. Referential, memorable, propagandized; Useful phrases that can be easily referenced by news/entertainment and circle social media in political debate. It's easier to conduct civic debate when the policies are so conveniently named... but the fact a tool like Santos' will forever be a relevant part of our nation's legal history, due to the acronym, disgusts me. He deserves no more attention from the outside of a criminal facility. >

A bill that would stop politicians from lying?  Over the Republican Party's dead body! >

$100,000 fine
Just a reminder, for campaigns that pull in millions of dollars, this is a small percentage of the funds that are donated. 
No one is punished from this type of fine. It amounts to less than a slap on the wrist. 
If you want to see changes, you need to put these crooks into prison. >

His name will live in infamy! >

They really backed into that acronym but it works…? >

This needed to be passed yesterday >

This fucking guy >

Dangerous. This is fucking stupidity. >

What are the chances he was truthful on his immigration applications? If not he could be deported. A lot of decent hardworking people are deported for that so why not this probable spy? >

This is just to trash Santos. >

man those congressional interns work real hard at those acronyms huh >

The Law isn’t supposed to keep fuckhead idiot voters from electing a piece of shit. The voters themselves and “the press” are supposed to do that. 
(I put “the press” in quotes because, y’know. They’re beyond a horrible joke.) >

This case would be more along the lines of, you went to find some gold bricks but once you bought the gold bricks they turned out to just be filled with shit 😂 >

Wouldn’t every politician then be fined and sent to jail? >

Nah there’s still plenty of kinds of lies that would still be legal, just not about basic resume things like their employment and education.
Voters will still have to think critically about their candidates and compare what they say against public record, but we know how that goes these days.