comment: >
  
  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.
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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Having lost so many local reliable newspapers, there are no longer community accountability standards, creating a post-truth society. >
  
  Minus the fame, George has many of the same fake qualities as DJT that Republicans love. >
  
  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 >
  
  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. >
  
  No they really aren't. Not the ones that matter anyway. >
  
  Republicans, after all of this time, are not going to shown any signs of self-awareness, because morality is “woke.” >
  
  he's just really really weird lookin >
  
  
  ... 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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Republicans think they can win a special election to replace him so they hope he quits.  He isn't anyone important to the party. >
  
  That'd be a big risk considering he won a previously blue district by appealing to some Dems and Independents that bought into his lies.
  What the GOP hopes is the press finds a better story. There's no way in hell they'll mount a serious effort to force him to resign unless something else comes out that really hurts the Party. >
  
  They are not and mostly they will be silent. >
  
  Lol no.  They will happily seat him. >
  
  To be fair, they can't read all that well and probably think it's George Soros. >
  
  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. >
  
  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