I'll believe it when I see it.
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
334 points (98.5% liked)
politics
19229 readers
3044 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.
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Exactly. The fact that it's not a no-brainer should be front page news and they should be rooting out every Republican who won't expel the corrupt son of a bitch and pressing them to explain why
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/03/george-santos-expel-vote-democrats
I mean either it's not a no brainer or we have to root out 31 democrats too. Personally I think we should be rooting everyone out.
We should have to root out those 31 Democrats. Party loyalty is bullshit. If Democrats do something bad, they deserved to be called out for it.
Thos 31 democrats didn't vote like that without the consent of their party. They just chose mostly safe seats to vote that way to block the motion. People like Raskin wouldn't do this without party consent and strategy, so sure only 31 voted but this was more than likely a calculated decision supported by the whole party. At the time the article came out people speculated it was to continue to make the house republicans look as dysfunctional as they are. My issue is with the whole of the party, those 31 are in essence willing scapegoats by my understanding. When I said we should be rooting everyone out, I really think it needs to be everyone.
"All Democrats"? Vilifying Bernie or AOC, for example, is gonna be a tough sell for anyone cogent.
The Democrats themselves are already primarying those members. Bernie seems to be exempt because I guarantee primarying him is near impossible and would cause disastrous publicity. His heritage may aslo be a factor. Its also not as if no progressives voted to keep Santos. Tlaib voted to keep him, It's hard to interpret this as something ANY democrat has issue with unless they've came out and said so. Just about every wing of the democratic party was represented in those 31 votes.
So sure some of them are the exceptions, they're also not decision makers (which is part of why they're the exceptions) and because they're not decision makers more than most of progressives victories happen completely outside the legislature. The only democrats the people want to keep are the ones the other democrats are trying to get rid of. Id rather remove everyone and let them earn their seats back then fail to remove enough of the establishment thats pushing out the representatives most in line with common public opinion. Because if that corporate dem establishment is gone, those progressives will almost certainly be back.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/11/squad-primary-battle-israel-gaza-pacs.html
I appreciate your thought-out response, truly. You make a number of valid points, and have inspired me to look a bit further into the details of our government's current state of wholly fucked.
It can be depressing if you do. It almost feels like whack a mole where you cant keep all the facets of the dysfunction down at the same time. It's a complex web and for the laymen like us, sometimes it feels like the more knowledgeable we get about these things the more cynical and alienated we feel from and about the system. These are feelings we need to overcome personally because they stand in our way of effecting change. Do the best you can afford to do on a local level, and you're likely already doing the best thing you can do. Accepting that some of these problems exist completely outside of your reach, like other states legislators for example can be tough, but necessary to inform your choices of effective options.
Republicans brought that trash in, they have to carry it out.
Democrats going after a Republican against republicans majority's will, is a win for reps as they can use it for propaganda that Democrats are the true fascists and trying to overthrow the elected majority.
Edit: I also think he harms the GOP more than anyone else.
Oh he absolutely harms the GOP more than anyone else, my main concern is the risk reward ratio of this move. Im wondering if the democrats helping show how dysfunctional the republicans are with this particular votes is going to reach people who didn't already see that from the rest of the Santos situation. This is a personal opinion I know but I feel like if a prospective voter hasnt already known this, it's gonna take a lot to see it.
Like I said elsewhere I am glad the Dems are using nonstandard strategies though, so sick of sticking to decorum that gives the benefit of the doubt to people who use the benefit of the doubt to undo progress and legislation.
I think they made the right call as the report was still in the works. Now that it's out I'll be pitchforking anyone not voting Santos out.
I want to hear from Schumer because he seemd to be the guy speaking out for his and the other stay votes, and his quote on the matter was that it was an easy decision since there was no conviction. So unless his perspective has changed the ethics report may not be enough, since there's still no conviction it's follows it's still an easy decision for him.
made the right call as the report was still in the works
The "is the Pacific Ocean rather large?" report is coming out any day now.. 🙄
This timeline is the worst.
It’s hard to believe that raising a voice the wrong way or using curse words could put a politician in hot water on the less fucked up timeline.
That's probably still true if you're a Democrat. Remember the fit they threw because Fetterman wore a hoodie?
Tan suits, aunt jemima, woke m&ms, urinals, and budweiser oh my!
I mean, Aunt Jemima® had it coming for a lonnng while. Even back in the 80s, I knew in my much smaller bones that something was off about that syrup brand and that poor lady wasn't actually having a good time.
They'd be voting to expel him not because he's corrupt, but because he's embarrassing. Weirdly, they don't seem to be embarrassed by Trump.
Trump might wear a lot of make up, but he’s no Drag Queen
Nah, he just motor boats Giuliani as Giuliani is in drag.
He accurately represents conservatives. They truly do not see a problem with him.
Conservatives will not turn on him unless they are somehow forced to. And even then, they would find a way to frame themselves as victims.
I believe he was"saved" by a few people from both sides, the Dems wanted to keep him around until he was fully outed as the crook he is, as egg on the conservatives face. It's not like expelling him would reshape Congress at it is, but having him fully accountable, rather than letting him slink into the shadows, might change the outlook of some voters.
One more Democrat wants to expel him, he's done for!
Republicans are in the majority, so unless a few people with R next to their name actually want to expel him, it means nothing.
Thirty democrats voted to not expel him last vote, he could have been gone already. Raskin said he was waiting for a conviction, if republicans want him gone sooner they need to do it themselves.
He's as powerless as a House member can be, so maybe they want to keep him around to make the GOP look foolish?
That's what most people assume, but personally Im unsure if it helps much. A functional government would expel someone like Santos for what he did, not hold his seat in limbo to make the other party look bad. Sure it's quite literally almost nothing compared to the dysfunction of the other guys, but I'm not convinced that adding to legislative dysfunction will help fix other legislative dysfunction with no unintentional consequences.
It's funny because I'm actually really glad the Dems are willing to not simply play by the rules and only within decorum, but to me I'm unsure how effective this particular gambit is going to be. Santos already put plenty of egg on the GOPs face and no one expects another term from him, his time was always limited, so this move needs dividends beyond just what Santos already brought upon his self and party.
Comparing the next election results of repubs who voted to expel against those that didn't is gonna be the sure fire way to measure this. Maybe I'm just nervous since the strategy inherently adds risk that we likely will only fully understand the extent or lack of extent of after an election.
The number of people who are just willing to walk right past all the Republicans causing the problems to then blame the Democrats for not saving these idiots is wild.
Not a single Republican that voted to keep Santos is withing reach of my vote. Not only are none of them from my state but I never vote Republican, so my vote was never theirs to gain or lose. The Democrats however do have candidates who voted to keep Santos that I get to vote for or against.
Beyond that point, the fact that Republicans did something selfish and stupid doesn't mean democrats are blamless in amplifying it. Im worried this may not be super great come election time since most Republicans will be able to go back to their state and tell everyone they tried to kick santos out but the democrats helped block it. There needs to be sweeping losses among the republicans who voted to keep him.
And beyond that point, as a voter of the democrats you're actually allowed to question and be critical of their strategy, you don't have to settle for diverting all blame to Republicans. You're allowed to ask for better.
Hey, you vote how you want. Just saying that if you're thinking about not voting for a Democrat who wouldn't rescue republicans from themselves, well, you'll end up with representation that better suits you, I guess.
We all know that what a Republican says they’ll do, and what they actually do are usually two different things 
While I'm glad to see the system healing itself, it's still painful to watch. It would be nicer to see protections in place to prevent fraud as a means to gain and slightly remain in office.
Plus the process of voting out for this instance feels unnecessary. There needsnto be updates to these procedures
Hopefully he gets expelled. So many ethics issues with him.
He is a career criminal.
How shitty do have to be if even the republicans want you expelled?
Why would they expel him? He just did things the Republican way. His only "crime" is being found out.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A growing number of lawmakers are publicly saying they will vote to expel Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.), following the release of a scathing House Ethics Committee report.
Santos has survived two expulsion attempts, with some lawmakers who voted against ousting him earlier this month saying they were awaiting the panel’s determination.
Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) on Thursday told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that he will now vote to expel Santos, after previously opposing the measure.
Rep. Deborah Ross (D-N.C.), a member of the Ethics Committee who voted present earlier this month, released a statement Thursday saying she would support an effort to expel Santos.
Despite the weight of the charges Santos faced, a significant number of members of Congress opted not to expel him when the matter came to the House floor for a vote — first in May, one week after the indictment, and the second at the start of November, after the Ethics Committee issued a memo saying it planned to release its “next course of action” by Nov. 17.
The most recent effort to oust Santos from office came short of the two-thirds threshold required to expel a member from Congress, but the vote was not divided on clean party lines.
The original article contains 780 words, the summary contains 203 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!