Who is George Santos?

That seems to be the question today.

George Santos made history in November by being elected to Congress as the Republican's first openly gay, non-incumbent, Representative. Not only that, he did by winning a district was decidedly Democrat in 2020.

However, the New York Times released an investigative journalism piece that calls Santos entire history into question. During his campaign, Santos claimed to have attended NYU and Baruch College before going on to work for Goldman Sachs and then Citigroup. He also claimed to manage a non-profit and a family real estate portfolio valued in the millions.

It turns out none of this is true. NYU and Baruch have no record of him having attended classes. Goldman Sachs and Citigroup have no record of him having worked for them. The IRS has no record of his non-profit and public records turn up no real estate owned by his family.

When Santos failed to return the NYT's calls asking for a comment, journalists decided to see if they could catch him at the residence he listed when he decided to run for office. Except the woman that journalists met when they arrived said she had never heard of Santos.

So who is this mystery man with a fabricated past that Republicans elected to office?

Source

Sounds like a possible implanted political operative to smear who and what he represents 😎

a reply to: Xcalibur254

That is quite a background story that he does not have.

Wasn't there an episode of "Futurama" where someone was elected president of Earth on the day he was born? He was a time traveler.

I wonder what explanation they have for this one.

a reply to: network dude

Please note this isn't the Mud Pit.

Because the Republicans failed to vet their candidate there's a good chance their thin majority will become even thinner if Santos is deemed ineligible to hold office.

Sounds like Obama with his fake birth certificate. Guess if it was good enough for Democrats, it should be good enough for Republicans. Let’s not forget the news are accurate about 0% of the time. The people have spoken I guess and all that jazz. Kinda like censorship on Twitter was okay when it used against conservatives so should be okay now as well. I’m sure you get my drift at this point.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

It was a joke, but apparently too damn funny for anywhere but the mud pit.

I'd think those in his district would have checked him out before he was elected. I never heard of him, I'm not from round there.

But it sure looks like democrats dropped the ball bigley. It's not like you can un-elect him cuz he lied. If you had to do that, congress would be a ghost town.

Well done dems, I wonder if they put money into his campaign like they did others.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

Please note this isn't the Mud Pit.

Because the Republicans failed to vet their candidate there's a good chance their thin majority will become even thinner if Santos is deemed ineligible to hold office.

If they start disqualifying election winners for lying during campaigns…. There will a lot more than him missing.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Sounds like a possible implanted political operative to smear who and what he represents 😎

I mean if this isn't blasted on the news then he probably is.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

Please note this isn't the Mud Pit.

Because the Republicans failed to vet their candidate there's a good chance their thin majority will become even thinner if Santos is deemed ineligible to hold office.

To be fair, it doesn't look like the Democrats did a very good job in vetting their candidate for POTUS in 2020.

I'm glad to see the Republicans are adding more corrupt candidates to their ranks; maybe one day it will create a more level playing field.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

Please note this isn't the Mud Pit.

Because the Republicans failed to vet their candidate there's a good chance their thin majority will become even thinner if Santos is deemed ineligible to hold office.

On the vetting side Santos is a minor issue compared to Democrat vetting Bankman-Fried, FTX and his lost tens of billions.

Yes, we will ignore all facts like democrats and accuse everyone of being racist and homophobe - Democrat-style

It's called a "joke", as in Democrat

Lighten up !

a reply to: network dude

It's the job of his own Party to vet him. The fact that he seemingly doesn't reside at the address he listed certainly calls into question his eligibility to hold office. What if it turns out he doesn't even reside in the district where he was elected?

a reply to: Xcalibur254


Who is George Santos?


I am.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

It's the job of his own Party to vet him. The fact that he seemingly doesn't reside at the address he listed certainly calls into question his eligibility to hold office. What if it turns out he doesn't even reside in the district where he was elected?

whatever. If I was campaigning against him, I'd probably have checked into him a tiny bit, but then, I didn't run against him. And as I said, I don't think you can un-elect him, so perhaps you could make him sit with the other liars at the lunch table. Perhaps Joey could give him a purple heart?