The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I know that the conventional wisdom is that Santos is in the House at all because of a dog-catches-car situation where a grift being run on the state GOP accidentally won due to incompetence and/or malfeasance on the part of the state Dem party apparatus. I can’t shake the feeling though, now that he’s in, that exactly the wrong sorts of folks are going to be taking very careful notes about just how effective “flood the zone with bullshit” can be as a person and not just a messaging and media strategy. If nobody ever gets around to charging Santos for any of his myriad actual crimes, I expect that we’ll see a bunch more of this pathology, but weaponized, deployed as a stratagem to stunlock the normal machinery of social governance while a bunch of walking The Aristocrats riffs vote Gilead into being.
I don’t see any indication of mental illness here. Santos is a con-artist: he lies for personal gain, and it’s paid off richly for him.
He's a pathological compulsive liar, which is typified by telling lies when no lie is required and there is no benefit to doing so. He absolutely has a mental illness, in that his ties to reality are questionable at best.
I am opposed to the meme-efication of Santos because we don't treat humorous things as serious topics, and having mentally ill and obviously deficient people as leaders of our nation is a serious problem.
I don’t see any indication of mental illness here. Santos is a con-artist: he lies for personal gain, and it’s paid off richly for him.
He's a pathological compulsive liar, which is typified by telling lies when no lie is required and there is no benefit to doing so. He absolutely has a mental illness, in that his ties to reality are questionable at best.
I am opposed to the meme-efication of Santos because we don't treat humorous things as serious topics, and having mentally ill and obviously deficient people as leaders of our nation is a serious problem.
Im going to need some serious, reputable sources about Santos being legally mentally ill before I give the guy a pass.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
There’s an argument to made that he’s a pathological liar
People like that lie when there’s no benefit to do so, and have a compulsion to lie. It’s not understood why people are like this and my understanding is it’s difficult to treat
That doesn’t excuse or even explain the stuff he’s done to hurt other people. But we haven’t figured out a good way to deal with people like that. Certainly they shouldn’t be elected to Congress : P
I don't know what it means to be legally mentally ill
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don’t think Santos is a pathologically compulsive liar, because he clammed up instantly when he was exposed. He’s not out there blabbing bigger and bigger lies like someone who can’t help themselves. He seems to be trying to keep his head down and make himself useful to people who can save his bacon.
I don’t think Santos is a pathologically compulsive liar, because he clammed up instantly when he was exposed. He’s not out there blabbing bigger and bigger lies like someone who can’t help themselves. He seems to be trying to keep his head down and make himself useful to people who can save his bacon.
Santos bragged on Feb 3rd that he was a Producer for Spiderman: The Musical. Weeks after he was exposed as a fraud. He didn't clam up when exposed. Santos is only lying low now because the entire Republican establishment is sitting on him to keep him from doing more stupid shit.
I don’t think Santos is a pathologically compulsive liar, because he clammed up instantly when he was exposed. He’s not out there blabbing bigger and bigger lies like someone who can’t help themselves. He seems to be trying to keep his head down and make himself useful to people who can save his bacon.
Santos bragged on Feb 3rd that he was a Producer for Spiderman: The Musical. Weeks after he was exposed as a fraud. He didn't clam up when exposed. Santos is only lying low now because the entire Republican establishment is sitting on him to keep him from doing more stupid shit.
No, he said that in 2021 to donors while trying to get a check. It was reported about on February 3rd, but he did not say anything about it on February 3rd, and refused to comment.
I don’t think Santos is a pathologically compulsive liar, because he clammed up instantly when he was exposed. He’s not out there blabbing bigger and bigger lies like someone who can’t help themselves. He seems to be trying to keep his head down and make himself useful to people who can save his bacon.
Santos bragged on Feb 3rd that he was a Producer for Spiderman: The Musical. Weeks after he was exposed as a fraud. He didn't clam up when exposed. Santos is only lying low now because the entire Republican establishment is sitting on him to keep him from doing more stupid shit.
No, he said that in 2021 to donors while trying to get a check. It was reported about on February 3rd, but he did not say anything about it on February 3rd, and refused to comment.
Ah ok, my apologies for misunderstanding the timeline.
I don't know what it means to be legally mentally ill
There are legal avenues when you need to declare a person legitimately incapable to care for oneself / make legal decisions due to impaired cognitive ability.
This may or may not have to do with mental illness, it may just be cognitive capacity or understanding.
I think people are using 'legally mentally ill' in place of 'diagnosed' mental illness.
I am in the business of saving lives.
+3
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
I peronally think the best angle to get him on is to see if he filed for his election paperwork using fraudulent credentials. Like.. I get that George Santos won the election, but is this guy George Santos? Given how much the GOP focuses on election/voter suppression fraud, I would assume there are rules about what kind of identification you need to present, and what is done if that is fraudulent.
He/Him | "We who believe in freedom cannot rest." - Dr. Johnetta Cole, 7/22/2024
I don't know what it means to be legally mentally ill
There are legal avenues when you need to declare a person legitimately incapable to care for oneself / make legal decisions due to impaired cognitive ability.
This may or may not have to do with mental illness, it may just be cognitive capacity or understanding.
I think people are using 'legally mentally ill' in place of 'diagnosed' mental illness.
It's probably a reference to the M'Naughton rule for mental defect, which is that the person is incapable of discerning that their acts are "wrong", for lack of a better word.
"The poor man is not well."
"He strangled five people and pooped in the sink."
"In the sink? That monster!"
Much like an alcoholic who crashes their car and causes injuries or death is still liable, you can have an overriding mental condition that you are still fully on the hook for.
I dated a pathological liar and even after I told her that I no longer believed anything she said, she still hit me with the classics
Me: "You read my email without my permission and have been lying to me our whole relationship. It's over."
Her: "I'm pregnant."
Me: "I don't believe you, but if it's true I'll be the best dad ever. We just won't be together. You know I've always wanted kids."
Her: "I had a miscarriage because of you."
That's the short version that doesn't include her forcing her 11-year-old to pretend to call from the hospital during the "miscarriage."
The point is, that shit devastated me and gave me trust issues for years. My ex definitely had "a conditon" but she was certainly culpable for a lot of damage (to me and the guy she was with for eight years after me, and her son whose inheritance she squandered).
Fuck George Santos. He can have my regard over his mental state after he's no longer in a position to harm vulnerable populations. He can share a room at a clinic with Herschel Walker.
As someone who has suffered from extreme depression, anxiety and PTSD implying Santos is an asshole because "mental illness" is really fucking offensive.
Someone can be an asshole because they are an asshole. You don't need to be mentally ill to be an asshole and he lives in a world that not only encourages him to do this shit, but has actively and consistently rewarded him for it.
Seriously. It's frustrating how often people need to be reminded that "asshole" or "fraud" aren't in and of themselves entries in the DSM-5 or anything along those lines, especially in a time where a whole lot of political assholes have unraveled the basic idea of reality enough that LARPing through it in a completely fictitious way is not only acceptable but noble as long as it Pwns The Libs.
Past that, on the pathological liar front, I knew one for awhile as well. The disorder version of that thing is actually kind of alarming to be around, in the sense that after you get over the initial eye-rolling it's clear that there's something really wrong. It's a nonstop stream of falsehood, even when there's no point in lying about whatever the thing is, and paying attention to things like consistency or even plausibility is at best optional. The illness level of stuff isn't necessarily "I gave myself an idealized resume out of whole cloth to get this sweet $174,000-plus-benefits job and annoy my enemies while doing it"; it's years and years of things like "I was late because a fighter jet landed on my street this morning and the pilot got out to talk to me."
So other news agencies have followed up the Rep. Luna story over the weekend.
The general consensus seems to be is that she has exaggerated the facts of her background in the Republican "we never accepted any handouts when I was growing up, we had to fight for every government aid program we received" way, but there's a kernel of truth to the majority of her claims.
For example, she now uses her mother's surname rather than her father's when she was growing up. Her mother raised her primarily as a solo parent, but her dad did take her to a Messianic Jewish church a few times (which stretches the definition of "raised as" a Messianic Jew, but isn't in the same league as Santos' "Jew-ish").
Worth noting that family members were calling her out on social media for her claims, and her response has been to block them, then complain that the media are "getting their facts from family members she doesn't talk to any more". Washington Post has updated their original story with notes clarifying her previous "Democratic" affiliation was based on an erroneous voter registration database, and she is also using that correction as "proof" that the entire article is false.
So if you had "try to discredit critics without providing actual proof" on your bingo card, you can claim that square.
McCarthy accepting this fool’s vote and then trying to put him on committees is one of the most cynical fucking things I’ve ever seen out of our government, which is really fucking saying something
I was also thinking that Santos might have been decisive, there... but didn’t the final vote have a margin of multiple votes?
Or is the argument that booting Santos would have hurt him with other Republicans?
He came 1 shy at least once, if I recall. Herding that many cats and still failing at the last minute was incredibly damaging for McCarthy. If Santos wasn't voting it would gave looked even worse.
+6
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Yeah isn't one of the McCarthy concessions that anyone from either side can call for a new vote?
If Santos goes, that call is getting made immediately.
I was also thinking that Santos might have been decisive, there... but didn’t the final vote have a margin of multiple votes?
Or is the argument that booting Santos would have hurt him with other Republicans?
McCarthy didn't actually get a majority of the vote. He just managed enough Republicans to vote Present to allow his minority support to be sufficient.
I was also thinking that Santos might have been decisive, there... but didn’t the final vote have a margin of multiple votes?
Or is the argument that booting Santos would have hurt him with other Republicans?
The final number was 216-212-6 McCarthy/Jeffries/present, with one seat vacant. Nobody else received votes in the final ballot.
With that vacant seat presumably filled by a Dem in next week's special election, and if Santos leaves, we get 215-213-6. If Santos is replaced by a Dem, McCarthy still wins 215-214... but since now even a single one of the 6 "present" votes can block him by switching to a "nay", it'll look awful tempting.
Yeah that’s why I said it’s cynical. McCarthy didn’t have to be Speaker. He could have had some ethics or at minimum some shame and realized that getting to be Speaker on the back of someone like Santos would put a big old asterisk next to his name forever. He could have let Jeffries be Speaker if the only way he was getting it was by the vote of a fraud.
Yeah that’s why I said it’s cynical. McCarthy didn’t have to be Speaker. He could have had some ethics or at minimum some shame and realized that getting to be Speaker on the back of someone like Santos would put a big old asterisk next to his name forever. He could have let Jeffries be Speaker if the only way he was getting it was by the vote of a fraud.
There is no way Jeffries is Speaker without a change in composition. If it wasn't McCarthy it would be Speaker Scalise, Jordan, or some other Republican.
+19
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
McCarthy could have also approached the Democrats and become speaker too. Their ask was frankly a reasonable one of a clean budget ceiling.
Yeah that’s why I said it’s cynical. McCarthy didn’t have to be Speaker. He could have had some ethics or at minimum some shame and realized that getting to be Speaker on the back of someone like Santos would put a big old asterisk next to his name forever. He could have let Jeffries be Speaker if the only way he was getting it was by the vote of a fraud.
No he couldn't; he's a post-2008 Republican. There have been no principles at play since then beyond "Democrats multiplied by negative one" and "must be wealthier."
I seem to recall a bunch of Congresscritters voting for the ACA despite knowing it would likely end their term (if not their career) and doing it anyways.
Not like it was a huge ethical stand, but it does represent people doing the right thing even though they know it may cost them, and it did.
Gutted as it was, falling short of what a proper final form it should have been, and despite the GOP trying to put a few more knives in it every chance they get, what remains has still helped people, and that's at least in part because of folks doing the right thing at the right time, even against their personal interests.
We can say it's a low bar to clear, but it's an example that comes to mind in stark contrast against a party that has to be browbeaten over trying to get possible pedophiles elected (Hi Roy Moore), that is backing the thread topic as they cling to power despite him clearly being unfit for office, who screamed about tan suits and government overreach during the Obama years and then got really quiet over the horrorshow that was the Trump years (but they got some tasty tax cuts, and that's okay!).
To head off the usual retort, no this does not mean past, present, or future Democrats are saintly figures beyond reproach and beloved by all.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
The thing is, as an elected official in a democracy, you're generally there to represent your constituents (within the bounds of the law), not necessarily to do the ethical thing. Which is why it typically stops being your job if you choose the latter, and you get replaced by someone who will represent their constituents.
The irritating part of all of this is that despite the serious questions of ethics, the complete fraudulence of his life, the millions he scammed people out of or hell the outstanding warrant for his arrest in brazil... Santos is going to skate until he gets voted out by his district in 2024, at which point I'm sure everything will come down on him in short order because at the end of the day the republicans would rather protect this complete piece of shit then risk losing a seat in congress.
Posts
Your Ad Here! Reasonable Rates!
He's a pathological compulsive liar, which is typified by telling lies when no lie is required and there is no benefit to doing so. He absolutely has a mental illness, in that his ties to reality are questionable at best.
I am opposed to the meme-efication of Santos because we don't treat humorous things as serious topics, and having mentally ill and obviously deficient people as leaders of our nation is a serious problem.
Im going to need some serious, reputable sources about Santos being legally mentally ill before I give the guy a pass.
People like that lie when there’s no benefit to do so, and have a compulsion to lie. It’s not understood why people are like this and my understanding is it’s difficult to treat
That doesn’t excuse or even explain the stuff he’s done to hurt other people. But we haven’t figured out a good way to deal with people like that. Certainly they shouldn’t be elected to Congress : P
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Santos bragged on Feb 3rd that he was a Producer for Spiderman: The Musical. Weeks after he was exposed as a fraud. He didn't clam up when exposed. Santos is only lying low now because the entire Republican establishment is sitting on him to keep him from doing more stupid shit.
No, he said that in 2021 to donors while trying to get a check. It was reported about on February 3rd, but he did not say anything about it on February 3rd, and refused to comment.
Ah ok, my apologies for misunderstanding the timeline.
There are legal avenues when you need to declare a person legitimately incapable to care for oneself / make legal decisions due to impaired cognitive ability.
This may or may not have to do with mental illness, it may just be cognitive capacity or understanding.
I think people are using 'legally mentally ill' in place of 'diagnosed' mental illness.
It's probably a reference to the M'Naughton rule for mental defect, which is that the person is incapable of discerning that their acts are "wrong", for lack of a better word.
"He strangled five people and pooped in the sink."
"In the sink? That monster!"
Much like an alcoholic who crashes their car and causes injuries or death is still liable, you can have an overriding mental condition that you are still fully on the hook for.
I dated a pathological liar and even after I told her that I no longer believed anything she said, she still hit me with the classics
Me: "You read my email without my permission and have been lying to me our whole relationship. It's over."
Her: "I'm pregnant."
Me: "I don't believe you, but if it's true I'll be the best dad ever. We just won't be together. You know I've always wanted kids."
Her: "I had a miscarriage because of you."
That's the short version that doesn't include her forcing her 11-year-old to pretend to call from the hospital during the "miscarriage."
The point is, that shit devastated me and gave me trust issues for years. My ex definitely had "a conditon" but she was certainly culpable for a lot of damage (to me and the guy she was with for eight years after me, and her son whose inheritance she squandered).
Fuck George Santos. He can have my regard over his mental state after he's no longer in a position to harm vulnerable populations. He can share a room at a clinic with Herschel Walker.
Seriously. It's frustrating how often people need to be reminded that "asshole" or "fraud" aren't in and of themselves entries in the DSM-5 or anything along those lines, especially in a time where a whole lot of political assholes have unraveled the basic idea of reality enough that LARPing through it in a completely fictitious way is not only acceptable but noble as long as it Pwns The Libs.
Past that, on the pathological liar front, I knew one for awhile as well. The disorder version of that thing is actually kind of alarming to be around, in the sense that after you get over the initial eye-rolling it's clear that there's something really wrong. It's a nonstop stream of falsehood, even when there's no point in lying about whatever the thing is, and paying attention to things like consistency or even plausibility is at best optional. The illness level of stuff isn't necessarily "I gave myself an idealized resume out of whole cloth to get this sweet $174,000-plus-benefits job and annoy my enemies while doing it"; it's years and years of things like "I was late because a fighter jet landed on my street this morning and the pilot got out to talk to me."
The general consensus seems to be is that she has exaggerated the facts of her background in the Republican "we never accepted any handouts when I was growing up, we had to fight for every government aid program we received" way, but there's a kernel of truth to the majority of her claims.
For example, she now uses her mother's surname rather than her father's when she was growing up. Her mother raised her primarily as a solo parent, but her dad did take her to a Messianic Jewish church a few times (which stretches the definition of "raised as" a Messianic Jew, but isn't in the same league as Santos' "Jew-ish").
Worth noting that family members were calling her out on social media for her claims, and her response has been to block them, then complain that the media are "getting their facts from family members she doesn't talk to any more". Washington Post has updated their original story with notes clarifying her previous "Democratic" affiliation was based on an erroneous voter registration database, and she is also using that correction as "proof" that the entire article is false.
So if you had "try to discredit critics without providing actual proof" on your bingo card, you can claim that square.
Or is the argument that booting Santos would have hurt him with other Republicans?
He came 1 shy at least once, if I recall. Herding that many cats and still failing at the last minute was incredibly damaging for McCarthy. If Santos wasn't voting it would gave looked even worse.
If Santos goes, that call is getting made immediately.
McCarthy didn't actually get a majority of the vote. He just managed enough Republicans to vote Present to allow his minority support to be sufficient.
The final number was 216-212-6 McCarthy/Jeffries/present, with one seat vacant. Nobody else received votes in the final ballot.
With that vacant seat presumably filled by a Dem in next week's special election, and if Santos leaves, we get 215-213-6. If Santos is replaced by a Dem, McCarthy still wins 215-214... but since now even a single one of the 6 "present" votes can block him by switching to a "nay", it'll look awful tempting.
There is no way Jeffries is Speaker without a change in composition. If it wasn't McCarthy it would be Speaker Scalise, Jordan, or some other Republican.
He would have lost his seat for that.
I still expect politicians to do their jobs ethically even if it costs them said jobs.
No he couldn't; he's a post-2008 Republican. There have been no principles at play since then beyond "Democrats multiplied by negative one" and "must be wealthier."
No snark meant whatsoever by this question, but I am legitimately curious how often that you witness this behavior?
Liz Cheney
Not like it was a huge ethical stand, but it does represent people doing the right thing even though they know it may cost them, and it did.
Gutted as it was, falling short of what a proper final form it should have been, and despite the GOP trying to put a few more knives in it every chance they get, what remains has still helped people, and that's at least in part because of folks doing the right thing at the right time, even against their personal interests.
We can say it's a low bar to clear, but it's an example that comes to mind in stark contrast against a party that has to be browbeaten over trying to get possible pedophiles elected (Hi Roy Moore), that is backing the thread topic as they cling to power despite him clearly being unfit for office, who screamed about tan suits and government overreach during the Obama years and then got really quiet over the horrorshow that was the Trump years (but they got some tasty tax cuts, and that's okay!).
To head off the usual retort, no this does not mean past, present, or future Democrats are saintly figures beyond reproach and beloved by all.