>


Pro-Trump LGBTQ event

Wait what?
“I lie constantly”
Ohhh?
“—to stick it to the libs.”
praise the lord >

This footage probably came from a political tracker, a dangerous, important, underpaid, and under-appreciated position that I've done myself. >

Can you provide more insight into what someone in this role actually does? I’ve never heard of it before >


political tracker

From a quick google search, its a person who's job is to follow the opposing candidate and record everything they say and do, I would presume for soundbites that can be used against them. >

This is correct, and includes digital tracking, so things like podcast and radio appearances get recorded online by trackers, and all of this footage gets catalogued so people can pull it up later, like for this story. >

I think we need to take a DNA swab on this guy, run his fingerprints, check for passports, ID cards, and see what lurks behind any National info he has like SSN. >

Minus the DNA testing, you’d think the other stuff should just be standard protocol if you are going to be in the type of position he is. I’ve had to undergo multiple background checks, drug tests, etc just to get licensed and to work in a healthcare setting. Why aren’t our government officials held to even higher standards? We absolutely need to know who they are and they should be free of any shady backgrounds before they are even cleared to run for office on a state or national level. >

Silly cactus.   Do you realize what would happen if we seriously required our leadership including the person who occupies arguably the most powerful position on earth to be held to the average working person's standards for employment?  Their son-in-law wouldn't be able to make shady multi billion dollar deals.   
.
Last week I posted a comments similar to yours about getting things in writing and being held to the same standards the working class is held to.  I'd love to have every member of Congress apply for a regular job that requires background, credit, and security checks along with drug testing.   I suspect a whole bunch of folks couldn't get hired in nongrifting jobs.
I'm done with my speech now.  Thank you for being such a nice cactus and listening to me rant.  :) >

Your comment raises a good point. I want elected officials to pass frequent drug tests. >

Several years ago there was some reporting that Washington D.C. has the highest rate of binge drinking and alcohol misuse even though members of Congress supposedly has a slightly lower percentage of reported alcoholism than the nation.  Some members have opened up about being a recovering alcoholic or addict.  I suspect those numbers are higher. I'm not interested in anyone's personal private medical struggles, but addiction could be problematic in many ways including security.  Privacy is important, but standards we all have should also apply. >

No privacy allowed for public representatives.
It's the price of being a servant of the public. >

Yeah.  It does feel disingenuous when a secret alcoholic or other addict votes against programs that could help the average person who doesn't have access to financial and medical resources these folks have including keeping their job or their home.  Most of us lose our jobs which torpedoes the rest of our lives if we show up drunk or fail a drug test.  Then again full disclosure might not be a bad thing. >

I think it would be easier to just report on the times George Santos told the truth. >

Ive keep track. Here is the list...    
1...    
2...     
3... >

On a very cold day one time he did say "It is a bit chilly out today".  He only lies MOST of the time.  No one has a perfect record.  The truth will slip in there occasionally. >

And yet if he told me the sky was blue I'd still have to go outside to check >

It would honestly make me doubt the existence of the sky