comment: >
  
  I heard they found some of it and brought it to the media’s attention, who failed to publish it until now.  Could be bs, I didn’t follow up either.
context: 1.) Has he always been a liar?
  2.) Why did he think it was okay to lie to voters?
  3.) Does he lie 100 times a day or 200 times a day?
  4.) Is the first thing he says when he wakes up a lie or is the second thing?
  5.) Does he consider himself a liar or a liar-ish?
  6.) Does he work hard on his lying or does it come naturally?
  7.) Has he resigned yet?
  8.) How about now? >
  
  Why would he resign and forfeit his life to the Russian mob? >
  
  My only question is, since the Republicans have refused to demand the resignation of this admitted conman, why should we believe anything that any of them say? >
  
  We don't. >
  
  In the real world, if you are hired due to fraudulent credentials, you get fired. Why is it different for a people's representitive? >
  
  Because (R)easons >
  
  I bet his funding comes from Russia. >
  
  Even his own name sounds suspiciously fake. Like come on, George Santos? Sounds eeirely close to sounding like George Soros, whom is a QAnon staple for conspiracies. >
  
  Suspiciously close to a name a celebrity would use at a DUI stop >
  
  He is willing to lie about publicly available facts about his life. And I don’t even care about those.
  I care about placing trustworthy people in positions of public trust. I’m okay with being represented by a trustworthy person, republican or democrat. >
  
  Was he air quoting 'Jew-ish' in that photo?
  He knew his district well.
  
  old jews.
  gays
  latinos
  rich stock brokers
  
  So he catered his image >
  
  Did he get circumsized n everthing? >
  
  Nazi Superman can tell.... >
  
  Should be asking republicans how they can support a guy who knowingly lied about his entire existence and had money funneled into his campaign through a Russian oligarchs who had sanctions. Nonstop and out loud >
  
  
  What the fuck? >
  
  The only two questions in my mind are who promoted George Santos as a candidate and why?
  Becoming a congressional nominee of a major party is not a trivial process.  The GOP would have vetted Santos, and his acts of fraud are many and would be difficult to hide.  Yet, despite all these disqualifying acts in Santos’s history, the GOP pushed him forward.
  Santos, like Trump, likely represent just boils on top of the gangrenous infection rotting away at the core of today’s GOP. >
  
  Tulsi actually summed it up nicely: "Have you no shame?" Though honestly, she should ask herself that lol >
  
  They admit they supported him without researching him? >
  
  My only question is why did his Democratic opponent not find this stuff out and use it against him before the election?