492
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
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 !
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.
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.
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.
It would still be nice to see which of them think that he is part of the gang.
This will go nowhere. If they can let him cast his votes from prison, they will.
the social media platform X
It's still funny that people have to say stuff like this now instead of just "Twitter".
Proof your rebranding has failed.
It looks like he went for a thorough de-brand more than a catchy rebrand.
I'd prefer if they'd just say "stupid fuck Elon Musk's X"
one edge of the Republican values envelope has been located
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.)
I bet Menendez is out before Santos.
Since 1789 the Senate has expelled only 15 members. Of that number, 14 were expelled during the Civil War for supporting the Confederacy.
That's the Senate. , particularly by proportion.
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.
Can they do this without having a speaker?
Do Gaetz next.
Are they sure they have power to do that to the Emperor of America?
He's no Norton.
I read a great biography of Norton years ago. He was born in South Africa and was pretty wealthy for a while, but lost everything and then lost his mind.
Is anyone else weirded out by the phrasing "the People's House"? It seems strangely out of place and it's worded like it's some kind of official title.
Of course, it is the Peoples house. It just depends on the definition of "people", and it looks like this does not include the general populace. More like "People like us" or something.
People = Corporations.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A group of House Republicans from New York are introducing a resolution to expel Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., from Congress.
"Today, I’ll be introducing an expulsion resolution to rid the People’s House of fraudster George Santos," Rep. Anthony D'Esposito, R-N.Y., said in a post on the social media platform X.
Booting Santos would require a two-thirds vote of the entire House.
The move comes a day after federal prosecutors issued Santos a 23-count superseding indictment alleging he committed identity theft, fraud and other offenses.
“If they want to be judge, jury and arbitrator of the whole God damn thing let them do it,” Santos said, responding to the resolution as he ran to his office from a Republican conference meeting.
Santos's New York colleagues had previously called for him to resign in light of the criminal charges and revelations
The original article contains 202 words, the summary contains 139 words. Saved 31%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I don't think they can vote for said resolution until a speaker is elected or rules are changed. Santos would have a vote on both of those things.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
492 points (98.2% liked)
politics
18883 readers
2456 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