comment: >
  
  Fox News said the voters elected him … we have to live with it
context: Ha. No. 
  Republicans will not (and cannot) hold Santos accountable for his blatant lies. To do so would mean they're holding him to some objective truth and Republicans have done everything in their power over the last decade to actively destroy faith in such a thing. 
  Look no further than any number of lies or moral failings discovered every. fucking. day. by Republican politicians including, but not limited to, literal criminal activity that have resulted in zero consequences for the perpetrators. 
  There are no "good" Republicans. You cannot be a member of the party actively working against democracy and attempting to erode the concept of objective reality and be "good". You can only be complicit. >
  
  
  You cannot be a member of the party actively working against democracy and attempting to erode the concept of objective reality and be "good".
  
  The voters elected the guy. This is what democracy looks like. What you really should be arguing is that, since the GOP is usually against democracy, "what's so wrong with also being anti-democratic in this instance also?" >
  
  The house can choose not to sit him, that's actually a real thing in our laws, but the gop won't do it. So that's out. They should, but they won't. >
  
  
  that's actually a real thing in our law
  
  Where did you get that idea?
  See Wikipedia:
  
  However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Powell v. McCormack (1969), limited the powers of the Congress to refuse to seat an elected member to when the individual does not meet the specific constitutional requirements of age, citizenship or residency. >
  
  Article 1, section 5, clause 2 of the constitution.  Look it up.  They can get rid of him once he arrives.  I was sort of off on the refuse to seat thing, but basically correct.  Once he is there he can be removed.  He can be kicked off committees or not put on them at all, too. >
  
  The newly controlled Republican House will not get ride of him at all. Because he is a Republican. >
  
  Exactly. He’s a vote. >
  
  But he's a warm body who will likely vote for Kevin McCarthy for Speaker, so you know Kevin's okay with him. >
  
  I wonder if he had to pledge his fealty to Kevin in order for Kevin not to shun him. >
  
  If Santos doesn't get recalled in some manner, none of it matters. >
  
  Sadly, we can’t recall a federal representative. No mechanism for that exist. I highly doubt Congress will create a law that gives the people the power to recall Congress members when they are unhappy with their representatives performance.
  He will most likely need to resign from all the pressure at some point or another major revelation that will force him out, maybe something to do with his tax filings. >
  
  
  He will most likely need to resign from all the pressure at some point or another major revelation that will force him out, maybe something to do with his tax filings.
  
  Seeing how republicans are absolutely immune to shame, I seriously doubt that happens. >
  
  Would a party run by liars and fueled by lies hold a fellow liar accountable? Nope, they have no morals or dignity, and only care that having another Republican seat gives them more power. Herschel was the same type of Liar, and was actually criminal and violent, and they sent their best to hold his hand at every opportunity. GOPathetic. >
  
  I mean after their dismal performance in the midterms, fueled by the BS-MAGA-Election-Denying Candidates endorsed by Trump…GOP knows they should condemn BUT leadership will stay quiet cuz they need his vote. 
  There is one member from a flipped NY district that is speaking out I think cuz he knows he’s in a district that can easily go dem if he says nada >
  
  The conservative sub was about half comments saying "this looks bad, how can we trust him for anything?" and half "He shouldn't step down becasue dems play dirty so we should too and also the vote in the house is slim and we can't lose his." 
  :/ >
  
  Ethics, integrity, honor, empathy, and fortitude are what conservatives pretend to project.
  Conservative lies, deception, racism, fascism, dishonor and misinformation are how they justify equality and equity. >
  
  Minus the fame, George has many of the same fake qualities as DJT that Republicans love. >
  
  Will the press ever stop asking if republicans are finally going to do the right thing or take responsibility? >
  
  Corporate News is fair and balanced and not an obvious political 800-pound gorilla. >
  
  Had he been a dem, the pitchforks and torches would already be distributed amongst the GOP and Saber rattling about censure, no commitees, etc. would already have been promised. 
  Blatant hypocrisy but at this point is anyone really surprised? >
  
  If he was a dem he wouldn’t have made it on the ballot for the primary >
  
  he's just really really weird lookin >
  
  I think the word repulsive works here. I get an instant visceral reaction every time I see that smarmy, dough-boy face. Same reaction that I get when the Orange Cheeto appears. >
  
  Republicans, after all of this time, are not going to shown any signs of self-awareness, because morality is “woke.” >
  
  No they really aren't. Not the ones that matter anyway. >
  
  
  ... on Tuesday, Nick LaLota—a fellow Republican who just won a congressional seat on Long Island to the east of the New York district Santos won—called for a probe of his would-be colleague. >
  
  I still don't see what a probe is supposed accomplish. He lied, he admitted it. >
  
  The probe can find out where the money really came from. >
  
  Some rich wall street guy? How is this surprising? >
  
  Would you believe at least some from a relative of a f'ing Russian oligarch who is close to Putin? Cuz yeah. That happened. >
  
  Personally, I'm not a racist so I don't care whether he got money from a Slavic person or not. You may not know this, but there are actually 360 million Slavic people in the world and they don't all personally work for Putin, despite the common racist trope. Not all Jews are secretly loyal to Israel either, no matter what Kanye tells you! >
  
  The only way the GOP will turn on Santos is if he comes out and says that he lied about being a Republican and is actually a Democrat. >
  
  To be fair, they can't read all that well and probably think it's George Soros. >
  
  If any are . . . BIG IF . . . then it is due to optics, not actions.  Republicans do not give a fuck about republican lies, whether in degree, kind, or volume. >
  
  Lol no.  They will happily seat him. >
  
  I’ve pretty much only seen two types of takes from Republicans on this: 
  
  
  He should resign, and also LOL how did no one do a better job vetting their opposition in this race, as all of this would have presumably sunk his candidacy. 
  
  
  He should resign, but it’s not really that surprising if he doesn’t and this stuff blows over, because politicians lie about their past all the times in big and small ways and get passes on it: insert XYZ time Democrat lied. 
  
  
  I haven’t seen a single take supporting him sincerely as if he’s some humble man who mixed up some details about his past accidentally. >
  
  Regarding number 1, don’t fall in the trap of letting the media get away with covering its tracks regarding how they didn’t uncover this story. It isn’t up to Democrats to do that and, besides, what difference would it have made? The media failed to do its job by conducting investigative reporting and is now trying to blame Democrats for their failures. Or, this is a novel idea, why didn’t the GOP vet their own guy? >
  
  Oh, I don’t give any slack to journalists and the media. The vast majority of media produced in the mainstream is garbage and not proper journalism, and they absolutely should have found this out sooner.
  But so should have Dems (and primary challenging Republicans) with proper opposition research, and so should have Republicans with proper candidate vetting. >
  
  They are not and mostly they will be silent. >
  
  It astounds me how this is the closest we'll get to them, possibly, pushing a member out. Gaetz, Boebert, Greene, Jordan...the list goes on with how many are absolutely disgusting within their party, but no, Santos is where they may draw the line. Maybe the lies are too blatant. >
  
  Well there was Madison Cawthorn, who of course was replaced with another fascist in his safely red district. But that was definitely a takedown job by the concerted forces of Murdoch and the RNC. God knows what was still waiting to come out there. >
  
  Does it matter if he steps down or is removed now, or after appointed? What are the laws for replacing a representative in New York? Special election?  Governor appointment?  Could the GOP seat swing to Democrat? >
  
  Special election.  I believe it wouldn't be until November. >
  
  If they do, it's only to save face and not out of any real disdain for his lies. >
  
  Nope.
  Morals do not exist in the party >
  
  One of the problems with the top down nature of the Republican party is acting on these kinds of character flaws requires approval for disapproval.
  The threat of getting primaried is an axe at the neck of all Republicans reducing their ability to act out of consience always looking to the party dads for direction.
  This is the one thing that keeps the GOP from being replaced and in power even as a minority. >
  
  He'll be fine until the 3rd. McCarthy needs his vote for Speaker. (He needs it for the house in general but he really only cares about being Speaker.) >
  
  All he wants for his birthday is a cake with Sarah Huckabee Sanders jumping out of the top wearing his grandma’s mumu. 
  He has his favourite liars picked the same way other people pick teams during March Madness. >
  
  Republicans are not going to force this liar to resign with such a slim house majority. Nothing is going to happen.  All I learned is that I should have lied more in life. >
  
  Betteridge's Law of Headlines says NO >
  
  When the headline is a question the answer is always no. >
  
  I want to know who bank rolled this guy. >
  
  No. >
  
  They wouldn’t turn on him for lying. They might turn on him for his sexuality. >
  
  The dude looks unhinged as fuck every time I see a photo of him. Like, he’s not sure how to properly smile, and is just kinda making a face that sorta resembles a smile. 
  The smile never reaches his eyes, Santos has got to have some other mental issues other than just being a pathological liar. Dude’s likely dangerous. >
  
  Forget all the stuff that has come out. I don’t trust him because his ears were clearly put on upside down. >
  
  Finally? That’s lightning quick compared to 6-1/2 years. >
  
  They have probably conducted their own investigation and have come to the conclusion that he is screwed. They do not want to be in the blast radius when he goes down >
  
  i want him to stay , become the " classclown ". this is hilarious. 
  its literally a republican using " Bourgeois " as an argument against his opponents.  doesnt get any better. >
  
  If nothing happens, we have a way to undermine the GOP. Run democrats for GOP seats, where they blatantly lie about their positions and party during their campaign. They clearly don’t care about lying about positions or background - see santos and their Supreme Court appointees.
  I have a feeling they’ll suddenly care about if Democrats do it. >
  
  "You're late to the party."
  - Kyrsten Sinema >
  
  We can only hope they are willing to send a signal that it is not ok to be false... 
  Feedback is neccessary >
  
  Police their own?  
  Nope, they want the outrage so high that the Democrats do their work for them, while they make it an up hill battle, then act like victims for it.
  Come on Democrats, burn your political capital on a weasily junior representative so that the house can put beat you over the head on the omnibus bill and submit bills about ending Obamacare. >
  
  No. Kevin McCarthy needs his vote to be speaker. Secondly that district is competitive if an special election were held it could go to dems, reps will never chance it. >
  
  So, if this process is initiated, it may take lots of time before 2/3 of the members might agree (as if they ever would).  In the interim, the reported member can be refused membership to any committees / subcommittees ... and can be left to stare at the gonads of their secretary.
  BUT, it appears the reported member can still vote on any bills! >
  
  
  Are Republicans Finally Starting to Turn on Liar-Elect George Santos?
  
  Yeah, right. That's a good one. The GQP will only really turn on him once they have no use for him anymore. But he's certainly making the party of world-class hypocrites and liars look even worse than they already are. >
  
  He’s their new favorite scumbag >
  
  To answer the question: probably not. >
  
  I’m starting to wonder if he actually exists. >
  
  He’s got a very odd, pale purple/brown/puce/green tinge to his complexion and unnaturally white teeth; a la Kari Lake. Did they get their glamour shots done at the same time using a groupon? >
  
  If you hold Santos to account for his lying what about Trump, Desantis, Mitch McConnell, Greg Abbott, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,   
  In fact which Republicans couldn’t be criticised for lying for political advantage.. >
  
  Why would they?
  Santos is a living, breathing example of how inclusive & tolerant the modern Republican Party is...this isn't your grandpa's GOP, anymore.
  As long as you toe the Party line with respect to policy, and are a "team player", you can be gay (as long as your not a "groomer"), a liar, and pretend to be whatever ethnicity you want...this is about Freedom! >
  
  Watch them not force him to resign. Compare with what gillebrand did to franken >
  
  Is he wearing makeup? He looks like Marcy D’arcy >
  
  Congress is full of clowns, qualifications and experience clearly don't matter, not sure why this is outrageous. >
  
  They'll feign outrage & do nothing, as usual.. >
  
  I don’t know… what has MTG told McCarthy say about it ? >
  
  He's been turned on by Republicans for awhile. >
  
  Why is dude wearing so much fucking makeup. Looks ridiculous >
  
  I don’t get why they’d stick their necks out for this loser.  Censure him, take him off any committees, and primary him with a somewhat vetted candidate. >
  
  Nope.
  Ever since Reagan's days Republicans do not criticize other Republicans except when actively campaigning agains them (primaries and such). Once that's over with, no Republican can ever do any wrong in the eyes of other Republicans. >
  
  Not when Qevin needs his vote for speaker, they won't. >
  
  Narrator:  No >
  
  The answer is probably a no. The same thing is happening with Santos as what the Republicans did with Trump, deny and look away. >
  
  No. >
  
  A few might, the rest will whistle and pretend its fake news. >
  
  If you have to ask, then they have not. There's still time, though. >
  
  I really wish the press would stop referring to "stop the steal" or follow it with "based on unproven claims" and just start referring to it as "Hillbilly Trumpspringa" or the "Continue the Grift" rally.
  Saying "unproven claims" implies, for some fuckwits, that the claims are "yet to be proven" and that Trump will be reinstated any day now if they just donate enough. >
  
  Doubt it, he’s what the Republican Party is now. Him Ron and a lot of others are exactly the same but slightly different levels. >
  
  This is going to be the story that keeps on giving for the Democratic party. Santos will never again be able to say anything without it being fact checked by every news outlet in America. No Republican can take that kind of scrutiny.  This is SOP when dealing with Democrats but a new experience for a Republican. >
  
  I fucking doubt it,  bet some idiot will claim he has fresh ideas because he’s not part of the establishment >
  
  There is an adage, when a headline asks a question, the answer is almost always no.
  This is a great example of that. And it worked; I clicked on it. One GOP guy is not "Republicans." >
  
  Nah. They love that shit. >
  
  Nope >
  
  They are ok with rapists, so liars shouldn't be an issue. Isn't it actually a prerequisite these days? >
  
  They’ll give him a medal. For lying and getting away with it. Crime does pay out well if you’re a republican >
  
  the most important thing is that he is seated and votes for McCarthy. Maybe now some are grumbling but it is only because it is too late to stop him from taking office. IMO of course. Unless there is some huge break about where he got his money from some serious bad guy, he is home free as is McCarthy