George Santos

[jaF0]

Voters fucked around with fleas and got a dog.

 

[KeithD]

Voters fucked around with fleas and got a dog.

I don't think that's fair. The district Republicans did a shitty job of vetting its candidate. That's not on the voters.

 

[jaF0]

It's the voter's responsibility to know more about the merits of the candidate than just the latter after their name.

 

[HisArpy]

It's the voter's responsibility to know more about the merits of the candidate than just the latter after their name.

Absolutely and this is regardless of the letter in question. Further, when the press fails to investigate and inform, or puts their thumb on the scale, the public remains ignorant of the truth.

What's interesting are all those who think that the RNC should have done at least some of the investigating and information divulging in this case. In point of fact it's not up to the RNC to determine who gets to run for political office, that's the job of the voters when casting ballots. If the voters don't know, because they can't get to the information, that's a failure of the media to find and report the facts and news on their behalf.

 

[ll74]

Absolutely and this is regardless of the letter in question. Further, when the press fails to investigate and inform, or puts their thumb on the scale, the public remains ignorant of the truth.

What's interesting are all those who think that the RNC should have done at least some of the investigating and information divulging in this case. In point of fact it's not up to the RNC to determine who gets to run for political office, that's the job of the voters when casting ballots. If the voters don't know, because they can't get to the information, that's a failure of the media to find and report the facts and news on their behalf.

The RNC decides where the money goes. And you can be damn sure they knew he was a liar long ago and didn't care.

 

[jaF0]

The Party absolutely MUST know who the candidate is that they're supporting and promoting. That should be law and there is a move on to require it after this. A candidate should be required to undergo a vigorous background check. Even if it doesn't disqualify them the results would be made public so both the Party and the Voters would know who they're looking at.

 

[Rotadom]

Absolutely and this is regardless of the letter in question. Further, when the press fails to investigate and inform, or puts their thumb on the scale, the public remains ignorant of the truth.

What's interesting are all those who think that the RNC should have done at least some of the investigating and information divulging in this case. In point of fact it's not up to the RNC to determine who gets to run for political office, that's the job of the voters when casting ballots. If the voters don't know, because they can't get to the information, that's a failure of the media to find and report the facts and news on their behalf.

Yeah! The RNC has zero responsibility for vetting and giving money to whoever represents them!

What an ignorant post.

 

[HisArpy]

Yeah! The RNC has zero responsibility for vetting and giving money to whoever represents them!

What an ignorant post.

The RNC cannot "tell" anyone that they can/can't run for public office. The RNC isn't responsible for the "truthfulness" of anyone's statements as a candidate for public office. The RNC isn't "liable/responsible" for the donations any candidate receives from the public while campaigning to be elected to public office.

That you seem to believe that the RNC is some kind of "campaign police force" shows how really fucked up your political thinking is.

 

[Rotadom]

The RNC cannot "tell" anyone that they can/can't run for public office. The RNC isn't responsible for the "truthfulness" of anyone's statements as a candidate for public office. The RNC isn't "liable/responsible" for the donations any candidate receives from the public while campaigning to be elected to public office.

That you seem to believe that the RNC is some kind of "campaign police force" shows how really fucked up your political thinking is.

This is all ascription but it's really all you have to back up your ignorance.

 

[jaF0]

A Party may not be able to tell someone they can't run, but they absolutely can determine whether they want to back a candidate or not.

 

[Rotadom]

A Party may not be able to tell someone they can't run, but they absolutely can determine whether they want to back a candidate or not.

Shhh. Let's watch Arpy twist himself into knots with his brand of pretzel logic.

 

[HisArpy]

This is all ascription but it's really all you have to back up your ignorance.

Pssst. That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[HisArpy]

A Party may not be able to tell someone they can't run, but they absolutely can determine whether they want to back a candidate or not.

Sure they can. Show me where the RNC knew Santos lied before that information was revealed after the election was over.

I'll wait.

 

[jaF0]

The point is they SHOULD have known. They SHOULD know who they're backing. There SHOULD be, and possibly will now be a law requiring disclosure.


Plus, there are a number of indications that KevvieMac DID know at least some of it.

 

[KeithD]

"The RNC cannot "tell" anyone that they can/can't run for public office. "

Just stop this stupidity, Harpy. He was the Republican candidate. The RNC can--and does--say who the Republican candidate for an election is going to be and is going to receive the RNC support. They did this in Santos's case. They did this apparently without doing any background vetting.

And take your "media was responsible" comments and stick them where the sun don't shine. A newspaper fingered Santos before the election. Not enough for voters to pick up on it but the RNC should have (and probably did and decided it would go away).

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/classr...lection-why-didnt-the-rest-of-the-news-media/

 

[HisArpy]

The point is they SHOULD have known. They SHOULD know who they're backing. There SHOULD be, and possibly will now be a law requiring disclosure.


Plus, there are a number of indications that KevvieMac DID know at least some of it.

Again, it's not the responsibility of the RNC to tell anyone whether they can or can't run for office. Nor are they obligated in any way to do anything if someone runs for office as a republican.

Even if the RNC knew beforehand, which according to the available information they didn't, they have no obligation or basis to get involved. It's not their call and if they did try to insert themselves they could potentially be held liable by the FEC and maybe even criminally prosecuted for election interference.

 

[HisArpy]

"The RNC cannot "tell" anyone that they can/can't run for public office. "

Just stop this stupidity, Harpy. He was the Republican candidate. The RNC can--and does--say who the Republican candidate for an election is going to be and is going to receive the RNC support. They did this in Santos's case. They did this apparently without doing any background vetting.

And take your "media was responsible" comments and stick them where the sun don't shine. A newspaper fingered Santos before the election. Not enough for voters to pick up on it but the RNC should have (and probably did and decided it would go away).

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/classr...lection-why-didnt-the-rest-of-the-news-media/

This is basically you telling us that you don't know shit about elections or the RNC without telling us that you don't know shit about elections or the RNC.

 

[jaF0]

, they have no obligation or basis to get involved. It's not their call and if they did try to insert themselves they could potentially be held liable by the FEC and maybe even criminally prosecuted for election interference.

Trust.

Credibility.

Reputation.

 

[KeithD]

OK, so I guess Harpy is going to continue to be stupid about this. Hardly a surprise, of course.

 

[HisArpy]

Trust.

Credibility.

Reputation.

The RNC is not Santos. They did not lie or falsify anything. They have no obligation to do or say anything about any candidate and if they try they can be held liable or criminally prosecuted for it.

Exactly how does the RNC obeying the law erode trust, credibility and reputation? Because if that's where you're going, then most of the people you know are going down that same road in your eyes.

Yet you don't say the same things about them.

 

[HisArpy]

OK, so I guess Harpy is going to continue to be stupid about this. Hardly a surprise, of course.

dudly, you're a fucking retard when it comes to politics and government, so give it a rest and go write some smut. You'll feel better in both the long and short term if you do.

 

[Rotadom]

Pssst. That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

If you mean "ascription" then you should read your own posts. They are highly entertaining for all the wrong reasons.

 

[HisArpy]

If you mean "ascription" then you should read your own posts. They are highly entertaining for all the wrong reasons.

Your biased opinion, spoken from a position of intense rectal retention, doesn't mean much when it smacks head on into real life.

 

[Rotadom]

Your biased opinion, spoken from a position of intense rectal retention, doesn't mean much when it smacks head on into real life.

Why are Trumpets so concerned with normal people's rectums?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1615529889968300034