comment: >
  
  He's there for one reason to eat media divert us from the wack jobs that are making the calls that mean something...
context: McCarthy: we want the vote, so we don't care if he murdered his mother and tortured puppies. >
  
  
  tortured puppies.
  
  Literally that Oz dude. >
  
  Adebesi? >
  
  You could literally make up any sort about this guy and I'd believe it.
  'Prosecutors reveal that George Santos raised money for campaign by selling human body parts.' >
  
  He certainly sold his soul a long time ago. >
  
  True. I agree, upvote! >
  
  At this point I'd have to see a prescription for those glasses to believe they're anything but a prop. >
  
  *Looks at picture.
  They, ummm, don't appear to be distorting anything... Minor prescription at best, but I mean, I'm all aboard the prop glasses conspiracy train. >
  
  Meh, could just be the angle.  
  Even if they are non-prescription glasses, so what? If he likes them for the look, then oh well.  
  I recognize that for some people this is unacceptable; it's akin to lying about able-ism but in a way to take advantage of certain positive associated stereotypes, but to me it sits in the grey on this issue. I would feel much more strongly about him using fake hearing aids for example. But then, that's my opinion on this one. I personally think that eyeglasses have pushed far enough into the mainstream of fashion that it can just be seen as a fashion choice. >
  
  I mean, of all the lies he's told, if he has indeed lied about needing glasses I care the absolute least about that. >
  
  Pretty much where I'm at.  
  If he is lying about his glasses? I'll shrug and move on. For me, it just doesn't mean much to me. But I am fully aware that to a certain segment of the population this actually is something that they could get seriously angry about. Since I'm not disabled in any real way, my opinion on how critical this kind of 'offense' is would be basically a worthless opinion. =P >
  
  A DOJ criminal probe under Garland, just when the FEC was about to pounce?  So we can expect a decision not to charge, in about 2-3 years? >
  
  Well yeah, but the FEC can't criminally charge him anyway. >
  
  I can’t imagine Merrick Garland taking swift action regardless of the crime or evidence. Status quo, stall to protect the leadership. >
  
  Merrick Garland takes 2-3 weeks to get a judge to sign off on whether or not he can wipe his ass before he gets off the toilet. >
  
  They do.  But in Russia. >
  
  Top George santos donors are Russian oligarchs that are hiding because what they are doing is extremely nefarious >
  
  You wouldn’t know my donors they go to a different school >
  
  They live in Canada! >
  
  Please let this be the thread that unravels dark money in politics, PLEASE let this be the thread that unravels dark money in politics… >
  
  Likely won’t happen. Sorry for the bad news >
  
  Yeah, nobody wants it to go there, so they'll need to find other things to hang him by. >
  
  True >
  
  Wonder how many of the Republicans have this problem... >
  
  That would sure create incentives to slow things down, wouldn't it? >
  
  New Mad-Lib:
  Investigation reveals George Santos’ [NOUN] doesn’t appear to exist >
  
  Get rid of the noun and the apostrophe and you still have a correct statement. >
  
  This guy is going to turn out to be a lunch of little dogs in a trench coat. >
  
  Why do I get the feeling he’s going to die a mysterious death, or fall out of a window, or something? >
  
  Tea with a side of polonium. >
  
  At the end of this we’re gonna find out that George Santos isn’t his real name and we’ll say his true name and he’ll disappear into a puff of smoke >
  
  How do I become a failed candidate? It pays better than my current job. >
  
  We’ve hit on the plot of The Producers! >
  
  conservatives are above the law and the rest of us are beneath it >
  
  But but but, they are the party of law and order! >
  
  Yes, you follow the law and they give the orders. >
  
  He exists and his name is Putin