politics
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
I think it's more about not setting a 'look before you leap' precedent which could be applied against them in the future.
I'd much rather they set a precedent of not letting obvious conmen swindle taxpayers for almost $160k in congressional wages before taking any action.
Handling Santos with kid gloves like this only encourages others to try and emulate his scam.
What's stopping Republicans for having routine expulsion votes for Democrats without waiting for an official report? Precedent. Things are chaotic enough.
You're very naive if you truly think that today's GOP would let precedent get in the way of abusing their powers OR that that's the real reason why conservative Dems are siding with them.
The current GOP house leadership has already broken more precedent than the last 3 combined and those 31 Democrats share a lot of owner donors with Republicans, which is a much more likely reason for them dragging their feet in spite of clear and rampant fraud.
Oooh conspiracy. Yes, become the thing you hate; report back on how that works out on you.
Wtf are you on about?
You know that you don't have to ignore Dem dereliction of duty or lie about their likely motivations in order to prefer them over the fascist GOP, right?
Because it's sounding like you don't.
"Likely motivations" is doing a lot of lifting there.
I prefer "the words you shoved into their mouths."
I never said that they SAID that was their reason, just that it likely is, based on clues in past and present behaviour. You're really not good at reading comprehension and pattern recognition, are you?
"Likely" is now doing its share of work. It's pure conjecture from you and stupifying to see someone defend this level of ignorance as virtuous.
Mere sentences ago I was "likely" siding with fascism. Are we supposed to think this is serious political analysis??
I said that you seemed to be accusing ME of that because I don't automatically assume that Dems are honest about their reasons for letting the conman continue fleecing the public coffers.
If you're not even going to TRY to understand what I'm saying, I see no point in continuing this charade of assuming that you're neither an imbecile nor arguing in bad faith. Have the day you deserve, wilfully blind party soldier.
If all you got left is ad-hominem then by all means lay it bare.
And if it "seems" like you are the victim of accusations that I didn't at all make then that behavior would slot in nicely with the assignation you've reflexively displayed throughout this thread.
some people just won't believe it is possible that both parties are fascist. you're doing great, sweetie.