498
Imagine being such a piece of shit that even the Republicans don't want to associate with you.
It's because he fucked with their money...
He made up like 500k in donations so that the Republican party would "match" and they gave him 250k.
So now the other Republicans who could have gotten that money are pissed
Also, they’re idiots for just taking his word for it.
The schadenfreude ... by the gods it's delightful.
Muh bribery is unsecure!1
Should've used the blockchain or something!!11!one!!1
Winner winner chicken dinner. They don’t give a fuck about all the bigots and rapists in office, it’s sticking your hand in the cookie jar that’s the real sin.
It took a 23-count indictment to make it happen, however.
You have to break 50 indictments to be considered ~~presidential~~ crownable
FTFY
Don't think there's a word for the appointment of a dictator.
Don’t think there’s a word for the appointment of a dictator.
A "Coup" i guess.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It wasn't so much the 23 counts as it was the fact that he basically stole money from the Republican party. Theft of (Republican) money is !
I don't really get it. Santos is the most Republican to have every Republicaned. He's a lying, grifting, fraudster who knows practically nothing about anything and only got where he was by lying his way in and betraying the trust of everyone who backed him. He's so unhinged he doesn't even know where his lies stopped.
He's like the American conservative mascot. I'm surprised they don't name him Speaker.
You don’t steal from the rich
It's the oldest rule from the oldest thieves' guilds from before there were cities: It's OK to take a little from Jimmy's cut, maybe OK to take a little off what you were gonna give to your mother, but you never. NEVER. take anything from the capo. The boss.
It’s all a stunt. These republicans are just saving their own skin, fully knowing that vast majority of their own party won’t expel this asshat.
He's not popular and doesn't bring in any money.
Plot twist: the Republicans will now fail to elect a speaker so the resolution will never be read.
Yeah, they've given George Santos a perverse incentive to vote against any viable speaker candidate to prevent this measure from coming to the floor. Or he could make his vote contingent on the new speaker not bringing it.
Can’t he also bring up a vote to unseat any speaker? The Gift That Keeps Giving.
That was the deal with McCarthy, not clear if that's the deal that anyone else will have
It's House rules for this legislative session unless they vote to change it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I was gonna say...can they even do that without a Speaker?
So this is just performance, it seems, with no ability or intention of following through.
Speaking of, did Nancy Pelosi actually vacate the office the temp speaker kicked her out of? I hope she just laughed.
I'm not sure; will have to look that up. But yeah, I hope she either laughed right in McHenry's face or at least replied on her official letterhead "Lol, no."
Aw man, she left it.
According to a Pelosi spokesperson, who spoke to Politico, House Minority Leader Hakeen Jeffries' staff helped pack up Pelosi's office on Tuesday night.
In her defense, that's the "high road" thing to do. I'll never fault anyone for taking the high road.
True, but I at least hope they left the office a huge mess.
Maybe with a note saying, "Restored to the condition I found it in, upon arrival on the morning of 1/7/21, after it had been prepared by your constituents."
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's New York GOP, not the entire party. The New Yorkers need to have some cover, but know that the rest of the party will kill the resolution.
Political theater.
But it takes 2/3 to remove him. No way there are enough Republicans with morals and integrity for that to happen.
Wait so only republicans vote? I thought it was the whole house.
It is the whole House. Right now, there are 221 Republicans and 212 Democrats. So 289 votes are needed to expel Santos. You can safely assume that all Democrats will vote to expel so the Republicans will need to come up with 77 more votes. ~~This is a little over half. If half of all Republicans can't agree on this, it will fail.~~ A little over a third of Republicans would need to vote for this.
Edit: 289 votes are needed, not 325.
How did you get 325? There are 435 members normally (433 assuming your numbers are right with vacancies, which seems believable.) 2/3 of 435 is 290.
So you'd only need ~78 republicans with morals. Still wouldn't happen, but weirder things have.
Oops. You're right. I'm not sure how I made that mistake. I'll edit my comment.
It is, but you'd need a substantial portion of Republicans to break ranks and vote to expel a member of their own party (reducing their vote margin) in order to expel him, since the Republicans are the majority
I hope to see it but certainly not holding my breath.
load more comments
(2 replies)
the social media platform X
It's still funny that people have to say stuff like this now instead of just "Twitter".
I'd prefer if they'd just say "stupid fuck Elon Musk's X"
Proof your rebranding has failed.
It looks like he went for a thorough de-brand more than a catchy rebrand.
one edge of the Republican values envelope has been located
My reading of that headline was a rollercoaster.
First I read it as "Republican Lawmakers introduce resolution...", and I was excited and pleasantly surprised.
Then I reread it and realized it was, "Republican Lawmakers to introduce resolution...
And suddenly I was Dwight Schrute.
Notice how this was conveniently done at a time when the House is shut down and there's zero chance that this is actually taken up.
They have to find a speaker first. Then we have issues like Ukraine and Israel to deal with. And then we're right up at the time where the GOP will manufacture another debt ceiling "crisis". Then maybe they'll find time to expel one of their own mem........oh I can't even finish typing that sentence. You know they'll just never mention it again.
This is just virtue signaling. They don't want to expel Santos because they need his vote. They just want to look like they actually care about corruption in their own party. So they're doing this now, knowing full well that there's almost no chance anything actually comes out of it.
(And yes, I guarantee you it's why Schumer hasn't taken a hard line on Menendez. He needs his vote in the Senate just as badly.)
load more comments
(2 replies)
How does it work? If there were a third party in the congrees, would the two biggest parties just be able to expel all members from that party from house since they can easily get 2/3 majority?
In theory yes, in practice not so much since they'd probably be useful to one side or the other for votes.
Are they sure they have power to do that to the Emperor of America?
Can they do this without having a speaker?
Do Gaetz next.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
498 points (98.1% liked)
politics
18601 readers
3675 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS