210
all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Starkstruck@lemmy.world 67 points 10 months ago

Frankly, it would be bad precedent if he wasn't expelled.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 39 points 10 months ago

It has already set a bad precedent because a) he didn't resign on his own after all what became public knowledge and b) that it took so long to get rid of him after is was clear that he had no honor left.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 39 points 10 months ago

The best time to hold Republicans accountable was 60 years ago when they were trying to foment a race war and sabotaging US led peace talks in Vietnam to win a presidential election. The second best time is today.

[-] steve_floof@lemm.ee 31 points 10 months ago

Some might say “Expelling George Santos set a good precedent”

[-] lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago

I am one of those people. He is a conman and a criminal, end of story. This isn't some political gray area here.

[-] Paradachshund@lemmy.today 9 points 10 months ago

And those people clearly hate freedom and a free market /s

[-] Kolrami@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

In theory, yes. In practice, he had to be everything Republicans hated for them to vote against him. I don't believe his lies or suspicious finances were the problems.

The true things about him that got his party to vote against him were: he's gay, he's brown, he's done drag, his Wikipedia page doesn't have a birth place.

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I can think of about 50 Republicans and 1 Democrat that also need to be booted.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago

That ratio seems about right. Who is the Democrat?

[-] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 1 points 10 months ago

Jamaal Bowman probably. But his pulling a fire alarm to stop House Republicans from fucking everyone over is fundamentally different than anything Santos did.

There's a lot of false equivocation between the two.

[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 11 points 10 months ago

I bet it's Menendez.

[-] Unaware7013@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

Why would they expel Bowman for pulling the alarm? Especially when you've got assholes like menendez who are pulling pages from the republicans book of ~~corruption~~ basic congressional tactics.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I think you're about 200 Republicans and maybe a dozen Democratic lawmakers low

Quick edit; I'm thinking across both houses of Congress with this count

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Only 50 and 1? I'm thinking quadruple the first number and make the second one what you made the first one. That should get rid of the most corrupt members of the House,.including the top leadership of both parties.

In the Senate I'm thinking 40 of one, 20 of the other.

White House: most cabinet positions, president and vice president are too corrupt and/or incompetent so replace those.

Lauren McFerran can definitely stay. She's doing magnificent work at the NLRB. Probably the best the agency has been doing in my 40 year lifetime.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

You'd think this would have gone without saying, and yet...

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'd like to see more expelled. Starting with those that signed on for OJ's (Orange Jesus) coup.

Also, is there any chance that Santos goes to prison?

[-] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago

Probably, he went after rich people's money for his own gain, not their's or the party's goal.

[-] joel_feila@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Does he get any retirement benfits or not

[-] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago

He didn't do 5 years, so most likely not. And if the new bill about expelled representatives goes through, it will we upgraded to no.

[-] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Only republicans think that removing a cancerous tumor is a bad thing.

[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago

Yes it did! Now I can't STEAL MONEY from my Constituents!

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago

It can be both. Very specifically, expelling someone who hasn't been convicted of anything is bad precedent. But it's also necessary when the crimes are this obvious, this tied in to his job as congressman, and the legal system moves as slow as it does.

[-] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

expelling someone who hasn't been convicted of anything is bad precedent

In most cases, I would agree with this. In the case of Santos, I do not. He ran his campaign claiming to be several things he is not. When that information was discovered, I think that would be enough to throw him out. At the point of knowing his entire persona was lies, he was not the person the people elected.

[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

Crimes aside, his open & admitted lies alone should have been enough to expel him.

[-] Unaware7013@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

Yes, but that would require republicans to come up with impossible things, like integrity.

[-] macattack@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I want him gone too, but saying the impact has been minimal a week after his expulsion seems a little myopic.

[-] bilb@lem.monster -1 points 10 months ago

I acknowledge George Santos as rightful president of the united states.

this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
210 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19002 readers
3916 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS