Comments
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j1aoolx wrote
It was by his opponent. The media just didn’t care at the time and just crimeposted instead.
[deleted] t1_j1b0fjl wrote
[deleted]
ionsh t1_j1c7hv3 wrote
I went through the site and their latest article is a real head banger
So apparently he's been evicted a few times from previous residences for not paying rent, and neighbors of whatever the address he's using now have never heard of or seen the guy before.
And now - at least according to the article, the guy's on record for having taken money from cousin of some Russian oligarch out of nowhere?
I feel like someone from his district needs to call the Feds, maybe check a couple of things out. JHC.
LonelyGuyTheme t1_j1cz8mp wrote
Wonder articles by The North Shore Leader!
A great example of why local newspapers matter.
My one complaint, neither of these articles have a byline date even though one of them mentions “four months ago “.
You can’t really tell what’s going on with news coverage if you don’t know when it was published. Especially with an ongoing series building up new information with each article.
DigaLaVerdad t1_j1db6y3 wrote
I cannot find the article date.
[deleted] t1_j1dbnqq wrote
[deleted]
DigaLaVerdad t1_j1dcc7z wrote
Thanks
archiotterpup t1_j19wdyg wrote
They're not sending their best.
LonelyGuyTheme t1_j1cza04 wrote
Actually, they ARE sending their best. Sad.
isweatprofusely t1_j1a52ll wrote
Or the dems aren't doing our due diligence.
[deleted] t1_j1af6sf wrote
[deleted]
IRequirePants t1_j1agcm7 wrote
On the one hand, it isn't the Democrats' fault that Santos is a lying piece of shit. On the other-hand, the fact that the state party couldn't find this blatant shit is political malpractice. Were they even trying to win?
[deleted] t1_j1aiyjs wrote
[deleted]
IRequirePants t1_j1anwnb wrote
Democrats aren't responsible for Santos. But they are responsible for Zimmerman. Investigating your opponent for oppo-research is super basic in elections. State party needs to figure out where they fucked up.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j1aorey wrote
Zimmerman brought it up during the campaign.
IRequirePants t1_j1ap5qt wrote
The divorce as oppo-research only really works in the context of everything else being a lie. Gay men have been married to women before. If Zimmerman brought up the other lies, do you have a link? Because this week or so is really the first I am hearing of Santos lying about a charity, about where he worked, and about his Jewish ancestry.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j1aqhql wrote
Yeah no shit, because this is the first time the media actually picked up the story.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/12/house-republicans-george-santos-democrats-ethics/amp
IRequirePants t1_j1aui4y wrote
From the article:
>The document does, however, list Santos’s educational and professional claims without question. The bulk of the 87-page research document leans into Santos’s ties to Trump and his antiabortion stance.
DCCC oppo-research focused on Trump ties and the fake charity, instead of deep-diving his background.
You claim that the media didn't cover it, but the DCCC research didn't cover it either. Which is entirely the point.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j1b11sg wrote
I never said the DCCC covered it, I said his opponent covered it, but the media ignored it.
IRequirePants t1_j1b2wit wrote
> I never said the DCCC covered it, I said his opponent covered i
You haven't shown that though... The only oppo-report is DCCC's, unless you have another?
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j1bbpm5 wrote
As I said before, it’s hard to prove that, because the Zimmerman campaigns complaints were ignored in favor of more crime reporting which played into Santos’ hands.
What oppo there was was covered by small independent news stations
https://www.theleaderonline.com/single-post/santos-filings-now-claim-net-worth-of-11-million
IRequirePants t1_j1bdrqq wrote
>As I said before, it’s hard to prove that, because the Zimmerman campaigns complaints were ignored in favor of more crime reporting which played into Santos’ hands.
This is bullshit and you know it. Campaigns have press releases or statements on their website. This stuff is independent of press coverage.
The oppo presented was about Santos's wealth (which they presented as sketchy but without real evidence of wrongdoing ) and phony charity. Nothing about lying about his ancestry, his employment, or his education.
DCCC and Zimmerman focused more on his anti-abortion views and connection with Trump.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j1bete0 wrote
> The oppo presented was about Santos's wealth (which they presented as sketchy but without real evidence of wrongdoing ) and phony charity.
But it follows the pattern that he’s exaggerated every part of his life and image.
If the media had done its job, it would have followed up on that by pulling on the thread.
> DCCC and Zimmerman focused more on his anti-abortion views and connection with Trump.
To quote a stupid man, that’s bulls hit and you know it.
IRequirePants t1_j1bfpjg wrote
?
[deleted] t1_j1apdjp wrote
[deleted]
IRequirePants t1_j1apobm wrote
>The state republican party needs to deal with its dishonesty and corruption problem. Surely that's the state party you're referring to.
The state Republican party is a burning trash fire and has been for at least a decade. Losing to a burning trash fire should spark introspection.
>Zimmerman pointed out during the campaign that Santos was sketchy.
Do you have a link for Zimmerman calling out specific lies?
[deleted] t1_j1as05y wrote
[removed]
NetQuarterLatte t1_j1ax2vj wrote
>Investigating your opponent for oppo-research is super basic in elections.
They did.
But the media was too busy trying to push their talking points on crimes, and didn't take the stories.
archiotterpup t1_j1bhts5 wrote
LOL. I think it's funny you think Republicans have the principles to take responsibility for their own party. Party politics are scourge.
archiotterpup t1_j1bhoy7 wrote
The NY Dems seriously dropped the ball and handed the GOP control of the House. The entire party needs an overhaul. I'm so mad that we have closed primaries, otherwise I'd change my voter registration to WFP. At least WFP usually has the same slate so they can capture some of the vote.
[deleted] t1_j1bhtwn wrote
[deleted]
archiotterpup t1_j1bhxrx wrote
And he won because the Dems dropped the ball. This would be an issue if the NYSDP didn't suck ass so hard.
[deleted] t1_j1bi89t wrote
[deleted]
mission17 OP t1_j1bj44e wrote
This fraud that wasn’t exposed until this past week? Because of piss poor opposition research?
archiotterpup t1_j1cccjm wrote
Long Island is suburbanite hell. Of course they voted for a lying Republican.
supremeMilo t1_j1avzm4 wrote
Democrats suck at messaging, what wasn’t Zeldins face plastered over a chart with red state murder rates!
[deleted] t1_j1awcd7 wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1awktn wrote
Because Zeldin’s campaign and popularity helped carry multiple House seats for R.
Silver-Hat175 t1_j1e9jhu wrote
Republicans had an advantage in midterms like they always do when a President is Democratic and the economy is bad. It has nothing to do with Zeldin himself. Republicans did not gain as much as they were projected and it is seen as a failure of the party for that. Here you are celebrating victory and making up a reason why a Republican should be praised for it. Do you people ever stop living in your fantasy world you force all others to live in?
supremeMilo t1_j1e9wv2 wrote
Hochul severely underperformed Schumer, and it probably cost the Democrats the house. Zeldin ran a great campaign; even if crime in NYC and NYS is lower than red states, if you let republicans control the narrative on it you will lose/lose seats.
Silver-Hat175 t1_j1glrd2 wrote
The party in charge at midterms always underprerforms. That is how politics in America works and the Democrats did much better than all projections said and past midterms. You are making up reasons for why a party did well based on your feelings when historical facts show otherwise. Another useless troll barking at his shadow and wasting my time.
supremeMilo t1_j1gm06z wrote
New York State Dems got absolutely smoked and have nobody to blame but themselves. Hochul ran a terrible campaign, and let Republicans control the narrative on crime even though NYS and NYC are safer than most Republican states.
If NYS Dems hadn’t lost their congress seats, Dems could have carried the house.
But okay, don’t hold Hochul and the state house accountable for fucking up the maps and their campaigns and enjoy Republican rule.
Silver-Hat175 t1_j1gmsri wrote
26 state senate races... 4 flips. Absolutely smoked? Make up facts on your own time not wasting mine.
supremeMilo t1_j1gmzfn wrote
Democrats would have held the US House of Representatives if Sean Patrick Maloney and the others didn’t run such shit campaigns. Zeldin controlled the messaging on crime and the house races followed.
Silver-Hat175 t1_j1gojgn wrote
Broken record keeps making up what he feels is right. Democrats ran shitty campaigns but did far better than projections and holding the House was going to be impossible. Now I'm going to ignore you. Be gone troll.
supremeMilo t1_j1gom90 wrote
You are talking about national democrats who did great I am talking about NYS Democrats who are an embarrassment.
$800,000,000 for Buffalo stadium, conservative chief Justice nomination… wake the fuck up.
Silver-Hat175 t1_j1gpb9a wrote
me: shows the ratio of GOP flipped as extremely low, 4 in 26 New York races
you: ah HA you are talking about national Democrats!!11
Truly a political science genius not an embarrassing little child cosplaying as a genius
supremeMilo t1_j1gpg5f wrote
4 out of 26 is terrible in a state where the D senator won by 13.2 points.
[deleted] t1_j1awru3 wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1ax66t wrote
Zeldin swung voters to R for all positions, not just Gov.
If Hochul won as hard as Schumer, Dems probably would have carried 3-5 more house seats.
[deleted] t1_j1axbss wrote
[deleted]
ineededanameagain t1_j1bahy5 wrote
Come on dude, I’m about as mainstream liberal as they come. Yes Dems over performed this cycle, but if NY Dems did their job Dems probably hold the house. Zeldin made the race closer, enough to carry Rs down ballot, than it should have been cause Hochul was absent.
[deleted] t1_j1bbui8 wrote
[deleted]
ineededanameagain t1_j1bcbdy wrote
They won in districts Biden won comfortably in 2020, ofc Zeldin had enough of an appeal to peal off independents and moderate/conservatives Dems to vote for Rs in those districts.
[deleted] t1_j1be2a9 wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1axgax wrote
It’s hyper relevant and dolts like you are the reason Democrats will continue losing elections. Hope you enjoy a permanent R scotus.
[deleted] t1_j1axnwz wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1axv1t wrote
And they lost the house specifically because of NYS democrat incompetence.
[deleted] t1_j1aydiv wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1ayquq wrote
That’s a triple down. Not a walk back. Dems fight for better maps, and or Hochul puts up a decent campaign, against Zeldin then we aren’t having this convo because this jackass loses.
[deleted] t1_j1azsj7 wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b049a wrote
NYS Dems lost seats that’s an L. The rest of the country did great.
If you are representative of NYS Dems then the problems are obvious.
[deleted] t1_j1b0p62 wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b13m7 wrote
It’s democrats fault, they lost to him.
Are you so naïve you think republicans gaf who they elect as long as they are a warm body and vote with McCarthy?
[deleted] t1_j1b1ndu wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b1wut wrote
People like you are why the Democrat party sucks.
[deleted] t1_j1b297p wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b2ica wrote
You clearly do or you would not have posted.
> The narrative that this is democrats fault is really something else.
[deleted] t1_j1b2osd wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b2vm3 wrote
Sure thing, enjoy house Republican leadership and keep standing for democrat failures.
[deleted] t1_j1b38h2 wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b3f3h wrote
We thought they imploded when they nominated trump and then they banned abortion in half the states. Typical dem L snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, just like this case in Long Island.
[deleted] t1_j1b3oxq wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b3x5d wrote
I’m a liberal that actually cares about results instead of stanning for democrat party failures.
[deleted] t1_j1b40cj wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b44ui wrote
You are no different from MAGAots who treat politics like a team sport.
[deleted] t1_j1b49wa wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b4ego wrote
I know, that’s how democrats could snatch the L from Santos.
[deleted] t1_j1b5bqk wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b5j3x wrote
Am I repeating the same point, or walking it back? Make up your mind. And right winger lmao? I want the Democrats to succeed, which involves ditching whiny losers like you.
[deleted] t1_j1b5mda wrote
[deleted]
supremeMilo t1_j1b5sgn wrote
We need to court sane people; not the ones dragging down the whole country with their state failures.
mission17 OP t1_j1b2djm wrote
Definitely not in New York state, which very well may have cost the Democrats the house. This fact has been well established.
[deleted] t1_j1b2qs0 wrote
[deleted]
mission17 OP t1_j1b2y71 wrote
The connection is pretty obvious, considering we’re talking about a candidate for NY governor and his impact on the US House’s composition.
[deleted] t1_j1b3cl2 wrote
[deleted]
mission17 OP t1_j1b4yhn wrote
I fail to see how criticizing the Democratic Party for not campaigning better in New York State constitutes right-wing rage.
[deleted] t1_j1b5e4d wrote
[deleted]
mission17 OP t1_j1b5z3r wrote
People on the left are clearly allowed to criticize the Democratic Party without being right wing. Especially when they’re criticizing Democrats not taking measures to perform better. Why should the Democratic Party be immune from that criticism?
[deleted] t1_j1b7cgk wrote
[deleted]
mission17 OP t1_j1b80fn wrote
> Zeldin swung voters to R for all positions, not just Gov. If Hochul won as hard as Schumer, Dems probably would have carried 3-5 more house seats.
That’s exactly what is being discussed here. From this very thread. NY Democrats underperforming relative to Democrats nationally and costing Democrats the U.S. House in the process. Maybe you thought you were talking about something else, but regardless, your characterization of the other user is totally unjustified.
isweatprofusely t1_j1akktc wrote
It's not about changing the narrative. We just haven't been sending our best to contest the seat nor have we done our due diligence and they got away with it. The entire midterm election for nys democrats has been a disappointment, it's a travesty that an incumbent governor came that close to losing to a zealot like zeldin. With this guy...grifters gonna grift.
[deleted] t1_j1al4es wrote
[deleted]
isweatprofusely t1_j1alqio wrote
You can blame the Republicans all you want, the only thing we can do is reflect and figure out how we could have done better. The fact is that we didn't give them a run for their money nor did we do our due diligence. These are the candidates GOP are presenting and we can't even muster up a viable campaign.
[deleted] t1_j1alz0t wrote
[deleted]
isweatprofusely t1_j1amw4y wrote
Piss on the gop all you want, it's not going to change anything on their end. What you can control is the type of candidates we support and campaign/vetting the opposition.
[deleted] t1_j1an46n wrote
[deleted]
isweatprofusely t1_j1aqb2b wrote
Lol
mission17 OP t1_j1a6crl wrote
Truly both of these things.
manticore16 t1_j1b3n06 wrote
Considering I saw basically zero Zimmerman signs, this is not incorrect
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1avg2a wrote
I’m as progressive and gay as they get. But like, how do you vet if someone is gay? Why does the media care he divorced a woman?
My mentor in my career is an open and proud gay man, with two kids and an ex wife.
He had a machismo homophobic Italian family and thought he would have to live his life in the closet until he moved to nyc and started living his truth.
The articles I see about this guy not being gay feel like a high school fucking gossip fest. Find something new to talk about. Let this man’s sexuality go. This is making us stupid.
Main_Photo1086 t1_j1brru3 wrote
If he wasn’t lying about everything else in his life, I’d agree. Many gay people have been married to people of the opposite sex. I’m just less likely to believe one of those people is this guy whose name is allegedly “George Santos.”
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1bvsd7 wrote
But like, even if he lying about being gay, why is it any of our business? And how would you prove that unless you conducted a series of creepy purity tests? I hate this. It’s gross
KosherSloth t1_j1ceqjb wrote
are you seriously asking why people care if a politician lies about their sexuality?
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1cm6ni wrote
No, I’m asking why we care. Even if he did lie you have no way of proving it without a series of creepy and overly intrusive purity tests. It’s awful
KosherSloth t1_j1dzj6l wrote
You’re unsure why people are upset that a politician is lying?
edit: politician, not political
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1fueyv wrote
I’m not, I’m asking why people are so determined to figure out his sexuality when it seems like there’s a million things you can accost him for.
KosherSloth t1_j1gmcjv wrote
because lying about being gay is super fucking weird and fucked up?
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1gs5xa wrote
But how do you know he’s lying? Do you see my point? Just by virtue of telling someone they’re lying about being gay makes YOU the weird and fucked up one.
Because once again: it’s none of your business
KosherSloth t1_j1kqv4r wrote
lmao he’s a politician. his personal life is literally a matter of public interest.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1m61zb wrote
Once again, you sound like one of those Obama “truthers”
Main_Photo1086 t1_j1czzyn wrote
That’s not the point. A purity test or whatever would be gross. No one deserves that. But I can’t help you understand if you are hyperfocused on this particular piece when the reason people are pissed is because he has lied about nearly everything he talked about in his bio. This is just part of that long trail of likely lies.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1dtoub wrote
It’s pretty simple. If he’s lying about everything else, focus on the stuff that matters. His sexuality does not.
mission17 OP t1_j1e7qv9 wrote
So if he was lying about his sexuality but not anything else, that would be okay?
His sexuality matters because he foregrounded that identity and explicitly invoked it in his support of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay Bill.” He’s very much advocating for policies that threaten gay people, and he’s using his identity as a gay man, manufactured or real, to justify that.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1ftzb0 wrote
If he was lying about his sexuality you wouldn’t be able to prove it either way and the people trying to find the truth would sound like a bunch of losers on the same level as the losers trying to figure out where Obama was born.
mission17 OP t1_j1fvn89 wrote
At the very least you could verify the claim that he was “openly gay” for a decade. A fact that’s definitely complicated by the fact he had a wife.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1fwd2x wrote
It’s none of your business though. Why do you feel like it’s your business? Do you wanna sleep with him?
mission17 OP t1_j1fynjo wrote
No. But politicians lying about every aspect of their identity to deceive voters is incredibly material to their role as a member of the U.S. House, one of the most powerful people in the country.
It’s our business because he elected to become a public figure and represent himself as openly gay.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1fz7sv wrote
It’s not though. It’s your business if youre a constituent to hold him accountable to the platform you voted him in to execute.
Are you even his constituent?
mission17 OP t1_j1fzvxt wrote
It’s permissible for politicians to lie directly to their constituents so long as he votes for the platform he promised? The bar is in hell.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1g2pj5 wrote
What? it’s not permissible to lie to constituents about anything regarding your platform, your priorities, your strategy, where you get your money, etc.
When did I say it was?
Im done with this argument.
mission17 OP t1_j1g339m wrote
Only okay to lie about your background and who you actually are. Gotcha.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1g6uc2 wrote
Can you prove he’s not gay?
mission17 OP t1_j1g73c1 wrote
Is is incredibly plausible to prove he was not “openly gay.”
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1gs8k3 wrote
What constitutes openly gay?
mission17 OP t1_j1gtwq5 wrote
Sounds like a question he should answer for the public.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1i0hok wrote
You sound just like the truthers convinced Obama wasn’t born in the United States. You realize that?
mission17 OP t1_j1i2nzu wrote
I think the pretty critical difference here is that Obama didn’t conceal a divorce or lie about his entire resume. Context is pretty important here.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1i3svy wrote
You can keep caveating why youre different but at the end of the day, being gay or straight has zero to do with your job as a politician.
Even if you succeeded in finding out if he had a heterosexual past, now what?
In every single scenario you’re the bad person here. Plain and simple.
Why are you so determined to find out this man’s true sexuality?
mission17 OP t1_j1i557p wrote
You seem to be confused about what the problem is here. If Obama had lies about where he grew up, where he went to college, what his ethnicity was, or where he went to school, and there was clear evidence of this, it would be actual concrete evidence indicating he’s a deceptive person and not fit for office.
Of course one can be gay and married to a woman. It’s quite a bit more difficult to be married and “openly gay.” While that is still possible, certainly, it poses some major questions about the truthfulness of this man and his integrity as an elected official that he owes his constituency an answer for.
This isn’t a case of your accountant or mailman not telling you about their divorce, this is a U.S. Representative who will certainly be voting on critical legislation implicating gay rights multiple times through his term. His identity could potentially have no bearing on his job as a politician, but this man has already used his identity to justify anti-LGBTQ legislation. It’s clear it does have a bearing.
I understand you feel any questions about this are off limits and would be totally fine with him lying about his personal life— I do not. I really don’t understand why you feel you should get a veto on these sorts of questions, either, when it’s clear it’s relevant to so many others.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1i7lmc wrote
Sorry I apologize, I didn’t realize you had to be authenticated by the gay society as authentically gay to be allowed to vote on anti gay legislation without facing backlash.
mission17 OP t1_j1i8wtf wrote
I think you should refresh yourself on some gay history and how outing politicians who voted for anti-LGBTQ legislation was critical for the Queer rights movement: https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2019/11/14/how-outing-republican-25-years-ago-changed-politics-forever
In this case the idea is the same. Hold your Representatives who have power over your human rights accountable to honesty.
If a politician wants to use their sexuality to justify an anti-LGBTQ agenda, they can be very much held to account to answer questions about it. I still don’t understand why your indifference to asking politicians difficult questions should preclude anybody else from doing so.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1ixvia wrote
this is no way shape or form related to outing anti gay politicians. That was absolutely necessary.
Maybe you should form the legion of gays to start authorizing who is and isn’t gay since you’re obviously the authority.
mission17 OP t1_j1j4m5i wrote
> this is no way shape or form related to outing anti gay politicians
If you say so, then it must totally be true.
mission17 OP t1_j1azqka wrote
“Openly” is the key word. Did his wife know? Did anybody in his life actually know? Or is he just using this as a front to justify his support of anti-LGBTQ legislation, using the identity as a shield from criticism?
Even if he is gay, but wasn’t out, this is pretty clearly a lie he’s telling to win votes.
It may not be important at all if he wasn’t openly advocating for rolling back the rights of LGBTQ people.
The_CerealDefense t1_j1b12em wrote
I think the assumption (I'm making) was that the marriage was a green card fraud... im sure thats the connections others are making but they cant prove it yet
mission17 OP t1_j1b2731 wrote
I’m not making that assumption and I think it’s fair to call in question even his sexuality. He’s lied about his Jewish ancestry, his parents fleeing the Holocaust, his work history, his educational background, and more. To assume this one aspect of his identity is truthful in light of this new information is an incredibly generous read.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1bw1i1 wrote
This is so fucking creepy, why are you so creepy? How would you even prove that he’s gay or straight without a series of fucking weird purity tests? This is gross. Please stop.
rainzer t1_j1c7cl1 wrote
And you wonder why people can't take progressives seriously. It's creepy to call out a proven pathological liar a liar because he says he's gay? Fuck outta here
koalafly t1_j1cchm9 wrote
Who cares if he’s gay or not? Everything else alleged is 1000x more meaningful and malicious.
rainzer t1_j1eimtw wrote
If you don't care or think it matters, then why do you care if anyone asks if it's the 1359th lie on his list of lies?
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1cmdt6 wrote
I don’t give a flying fuck what you think of me or progressives. I honestly welcome being sidelined by a crowd who is preoccupying themselves with who is and isn’t gay. This is truly disgusting behavior. Look at what you’re defending. It’s despicable.
LonelyGuyTheme t1_j1czrfz wrote
Look at who you’re defending.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1dtx87 wrote
Sorry, are you suggesting I curb my principles for politics? Nah. Not today.
rainzer t1_j1e0b6n wrote
What am I defending?
np for this conversation I am a gay black gangbanger with a kid that didn't get into Stuy because of asians and jews so I should be allowed to kill those old ladies np. You can't question me cause that'd be fuckin creepy. Why so creepy man
LonelyGuyTheme t1_j1czn47 wrote
If the man lies about everything else, it’s reasonable, to assume he may be lying about being gay too.
Is there any record of him sharing he is a gay before he announced his candidacy for office? His candidacy announcement, just 12 days after divorcing a woman?
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1du6ld wrote
If he lies about everything else.
Talk 👏 about 👏 something 👏 else 👏
yallaretheworst t1_j1gdd0m wrote
But he’s said he’s been openly gay for a decade. I think that’s more the issue. Like if the wife was from ten years ago sure. But it’s just that he’s lied about everything. So.
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1gscsl wrote
So find something else he’s lying about and focus on that? See. It’s easy. He lied about his career. Horrible piece of shit. He should step down. Ez.
But his sexuality? This ain’t any of our business
yallaretheworst t1_j1ib2qy wrote
It is our business if he made it a campaign issue. The dude loves the anti-gay bill in Florida. Him being gay is absolutely up for discussion
Shame_On_Matt t1_j1ixmqy wrote
Sorry I didn’t realize being an authorized gay by the gay society was a prerequisite for trying to pass a don’t say gay bill. I just thought being a horrible person was the only prerequisite required. I’ll try to check my preconceptions from now on.
yallaretheworst t1_j1kdf0l wrote
If you do something to harm a marginalized community, it’s news if you are or are lying about being a member of that community. It is not rocket science dude
koalafly t1_j1ccm95 wrote
Don’t care if he’s gay or not but everything else called out is 1000x worse and more malicious if true (and the non-denials sure make it seem like it is).
carpy22 t1_j1aieut wrote
This wasn't even his first time on the ballot. He lost to Suozzi in 2020.
The_CerealDefense t1_j1aiwre wrote
Yeah this was before that (we're on the same page)
_Maxolotl t1_j1dmqw5 wrote
Somewhere out there, Julia Salazar is holding Santos' beer.
yallaretheworst t1_j1gdhbs wrote
YES SERIOUSLY
SolitaryMarmot t1_j19jztc wrote
Please don't delete George Santos stories since he represents parts of Queens.
Also...this dude just manufactured an entire personality out of thin air. Crazy.
sutisuc t1_j1a4yhv wrote
Why would it get deleted?
SolitaryMarmot t1_j1aa2wt wrote
They were orginally deleting Santos stories because the bulk of his district is in Nassau County.
EdgeOrnery6679 t1_j1bd535 wrote
Its a negative story about a Republican, the mods arent going to delete it lol. If it was positive then theyd pull the " whoops most of his district is in Long Island, who cares"
Emotional-Currency88 t1_j1a1rrl wrote
This guy tried to act like he was Republican-version Forrest Gump.... He connected himself to the Pulse night club shooting, connected himself to the Holocaust, etc. It's beyond vile to falsely attach yourself to those tragedies. Even if he can't be criminally prosecuted for the suspect $700k campaign loan, the pressure needs to be applied on him so much so that he steps down.
whata2021 t1_j1a8j1s wrote
He also said his mother was an financial executive during 9/11 and was present when the towers were hit. Interestingly enough, when she died he created a gofundme to cover funeral expenses.
gerd50501 t1_j1biize wrote
why would he possibly be shamed into stepping down? He is a republican. He does not care what you think.
jermysteensydikpix t1_j1et0zl wrote
His whole story is one big Madlib. See if he starts demanding "SUGAR. WATER." to maintain his skin suit. I won't be surprised to find out he's an alien pranking humanity.
DifficultyNext7666 t1_j1cqqot wrote
There was no way Forest Gump wasn't a republican. Progessiv3s have hated that movie for years because they claim it a secret conservative propaganda movie.
Which is a dumb take but still Gump would have been republican.
Business owner, veteran from Rural alabama?
4BDN t1_j19xbtf wrote
I definitely hate George Santos but are we implying that gay men have never been married to women?
whata2021 t1_j1a8mhm wrote
Did you read the article?
4BDN t1_j1a8yva wrote
Of course not
matthewjpb t1_j1aoi22 wrote
> It’s entirely possible that Santos, who claims he has “never experienced discrimination in the Republican Party,” has been living comfortably as an openly gay man for, as he says, more than a decade. People get married for countless reasons. But Santos’ situation is curious because he never disclosed his divorce to voters, and never reconciled his prior marriage to a woman—which ended just 12 days before he established his first congressional campaign—with his claims of being an out and proud gay Republican.
mission17 OP t1_j1a955r wrote
You hate George Santos but you think this is the one thing so far he's probably being truthful about? The implication is that the narrative is suspect.
Distinct_Molasses234 t1_j1a7m9t wrote
Was thinking the same. Even “openly gay” men have been married to women.
yallaretheworst t1_j1gdqro wrote
I think it’s more that he’s been saying he has been out for a decade. That seems not true if he’s been married to a woman. It would be unusual anyway
Profusely_Sweaty t1_j1ahqin wrote
He's quickly becoming the political version of Anna Sorokin. Is anything this guy says true...?
suitcase88 t1_j1ag7ny wrote
Get John Lovitz to play him in the bio movie.
Normal_Acadia1822 t1_j1b6nny wrote
Yeah, that’s the ticket!
mowotlarx t1_j1aw6hy wrote
There appears to not be a single aspect of his life that he didn't lie about.
mathfacts t1_j1b6fjt wrote
First closeted straight politician?
Gaytaino t1_j1bsfod wrote
I think he married her for the green card, if he’s really gay.
Bralesslover t1_j1co0bp wrote
Doubt he’s Latino. Better check if the tan is real.
MJM-from-NYC t1_j1eeahp wrote
Jesus. Has nothing this candidate has said been true?
[deleted] t1_j1aafbu wrote
I really appreciate the man's ambition
ike_tyson t1_j1b2voa wrote
He's probably not even gay . Maybe gay for pay. Is this a dark money candidate?
mowotlarx t1_j1dkpqh wrote
This is a stupid take. He's gay. He just hasn't been out and proud, as he said, for as long as he said.
ike_tyson t1_j1e3kjf wrote
Almost everything he's said about himself is untrue at this point I wouldn't expect any truth now.
mowotlarx t1_j1e8bsh wrote
You think a Republican would pretend to be gay when he isn't to become more popular within his party?
mission17 OP t1_j1f7mg1 wrote
He supports anti-gay legislation like the rest of them. The man also lied about being Jewish and his parents being Holocaust survivors, all to push the revisionist lie that the Nazis were Marxists. It’s very clear that this guy is foregrounding this identity, whether it be real or manufactured, to deflect any criticism for his awful right-wing bullshit.
Character-Patience12 t1_j1d04cm wrote
Narcissistic Disorder!
GeorgeWBush2016 t1_j1dcnae wrote
he was spotted in a straight bar in new york holding hands with a girl in nipple rings
yallaretheworst t1_j1gdsov wrote
Lol what
ike_tyson t1_j1jff0k wrote
I said in another comment I bet he's not gay and got grief but I'm sure he's definitely an opportunist.
joon24 t1_j1aja8k wrote
Next it's going to turn out that he was born a woman.
Phaedrusnyc t1_j1as3ke wrote
I'm waiting for the moment he swallows a live rat on television and starts peeling off his outer skin layer.
lgny1 t1_j1d4348 wrote
He asks everyone for sugar water
allthatryry t1_j1cc34q wrote
Get Grace Adler to “in” him
Asdfasdfasdfgame t1_j1d5ec9 wrote
Does this mean I can finally lie on my resume?
Main_Photo1086 t1_j1dls4m wrote
This new piece from NYT does reference a husband that exists. So, being gay is probably one of the few things he’s not lying about lol.
Saladcitypig t1_j1e6cvd wrote
that's the least of it...
spicytoastaficionado t1_j1i57ig wrote
Dude gives off major Julia Salazar vibes, including the dubious claims of being Jewish.
Not sure if (maybe) lying about being gay is worse than (definitely) lying about being an immigrant, though.
TetraCubane t1_j1afimd wrote
Hold up, he's gay? Did he disclose that before running?
TonyzTone t1_j1c3bu8 wrote
Yeah. It was a well known (at least locally) that this was the first race of an open Congressional seat where both candidates were openly gay.
yallaretheworst t1_j1gdvra wrote
Who was the opponent?
TonyzTone t1_j1iafek wrote
The Democrat was Robert Zimmerman. Not sure if Santos had a Republican primary opponent.
gerd50501 t1_j1bidj5 wrote
As a jew, I am saying we pants the guy to see if he is really jewish. I also say pics or nots real if he is gay. He should upload a video to pornhub and prove it.
TheGrandExquisitor t1_j1kilds wrote
The Pornhub thing has already been done by that Itkis guy.
ExaminationBig8162 t1_j1bnmss wrote
This is a typical GOPUTIN Party Fraud. Dems must fight fire with fire. They will target this swine in 24.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j1ay2jy wrote
There's plenty of material for bombastic headlines in this whole story.
It's inexcusable that they would choose a headline that pushes this kind of harmful stereotype that an openly gay person couldn't be married with someone of the opposite sex.
mission17 OP t1_j1az2sb wrote
Even if he was openly gay and married to another woman, which is totally fine, disclosing this fact is clearly important considering he’s (a) a public official and owes transparency to his constituency, (b) is using his identity to justify anti-LGTBQ legislation, and (c) being married to a woman while also being an openly gay person is definitely a fact that warrants explanation.
I’ve been an out gay person for well over a decade so I don’t need to told how negative stereotypes work, either.
Most of us are well-acquainted with this guy after enough days of coverage to realize this comes in light of a string of exposed lies. You realize this too.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j1b0zt8 wrote
They could’ve highlighted the string of lies directly in the headline, for example.
An abundance of alternatives that didn’t involve questioning whether he is gay based on a secret past marriage to a woman.
mission17 OP t1_j1b1g57 wrote
> They could’ve highlighted the string of lies directly in the headline, for example.
You must have missed the dozens of other articles doing just this, including the ones that made this sub.
And once again, the disclosure is incredibly important, regardless of whether he is gay or not. You can quit the pearl clutching on behalf of gay people.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j1bbc8z wrote
Is there a form where candidates have to disclose past divorces and the nature of their sexual relationships?
mission17 OP t1_j1bccnm wrote
Quickly: How many other politicians do you know have also hidden their past marriages? How many have hidden a marriage that ended months before their campaign began?
Did this man’s ex-wife know he was openly gay? And, even if so, did the people he was openly gay to (for a decade!) know he had a wife? Absent a total attitude of transparency, which this man certainly does not have, almost every potential answer to these questions is problematic.
Pretty much everyone else here has the ability to use context clues to realize concealing this marriage is a bad thing because he’s lied about so much else. Just because something isn’t mandatory doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to be dishonest about it.
Is there a single right-wing cause you’re not willing to go to bat for? Be honest. For once.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j1benj5 wrote
It’s much simpler to deduce he is a piece of shit based on his record (of what he supported or didn’t) than trying to decide based on guessing his identity.
There are factual stuff like resume and such that no politician should lie about.
But how do you verify those other things? Did the reporter even asked him? Or the ex-wife? We are assuming here it’s a woman based on the name, and all sort of assumptions going around here.
mission17 OP t1_j1bfgxp wrote
> It’s much simpler to deduce he is a piece of shit based on his record (of what he supported or didn’t) than trying to decide based on guessing his identity.
To be absolutely clear: being gay is not what makes him a piece of shit. It’s the not being forthright about his background in light of the fact he’s an advocate for anti-LGBTQ legislation. Being that sort of advocate is one brand of evil, but potentially lying about your sexuality in order to do so is especially egregious.
> There are factual stuff like resume and such that no politician should lie about.
Politicians should not be lying about anything, really. Or concealing if they are material to your representation of others.
> But how do you verify those other things? Did the reporter even asked him? Or the ex-wife? We are assuming here it’s a woman based on the name, and all sort of assumptions going around here.
You ask the politician? Like the reporters certainly are?
NetQuarterLatte t1_j1a4x8h wrote
This really highlights the magnitude of the fuckups in the midterm elections in NY.
He only got elected because of the crime concerns that rose to the top of many voters minds due to the negligence and gaslighting of our Democratic politicians. Same reason that allowed Zeldin's campaign to resonate and attract more funding, and consequently narrow the margins.
If the crime concerns were deflated earlier by acknowledging it, rather than inflating it by gaslighting, this congressional seat wouldn't have flipped because all of this shit would've came to light and be noticed by the voters before the election.
mission17 OP t1_j1a62di wrote
Oh brother. I get that it’s crime, crime with you in every thread and that’s your thesis statement— but this candidate would certainly not have been elected if these lies had been adequately transmitted to the public ahead of time with due diligence from the opposition. It really has nothing to do with Democratic “gaslighting.”
NetQuarterLatte t1_j1a99or wrote
They knew this stuff, but it was small potatoes given the bigger drama in the midterms.
>The Zimmerman campaign was largely unsuccessful in getting the media to follow up on the discrepancies in Santos’s work history, such as his employment at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup.
https://newrepublic.com/article/169686/george-santos-record-democrats-media
Santos benefitted from those issues big time:
>“Anything outside of crime, inflation, and the cost of energy this cycle is a distraction from what’s really hurting Americans,” Santos told Spectrum News.
mission17 OP t1_j1a9vna wrote
Lying about your sexuality, your grandparents fleeing the Holocaust, your resume, your educational background, and your criminal record is not “small potatoes” at all. Be real right now. I know you’ve seldom met a problem you haven’t tried to blame on progressives, but actual, widespread disclosure of this issue would have certainly clouded over any sort of policy differentiations between these two candidates.
This man is a flat-out fraud. The opposition did not adequately draw attention to that and its only now making headlines now. These headlines two months ago would’ve killed the campaign beyond the point where any New York Post headlines about crime could’ve possibly resurrected it.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j1akywo wrote
You should ask why the press didn’t run those stories before the election.
Most of the press who should be reporting this was concerned with pushing the narrative that crime concerns were a fabrication. They clearly had their priorities.
mission17 OP t1_j1am38o wrote
> Most of the press who should be reporting this was concerned with pushing the narrative that crime concerns were a fabrication. They clearly had their priorities.
This is simply bullshit. Entirely anachronistic. And is not the reality of why this story did not surface until now.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j1aosiw wrote
>This is simply bullshit. Entirely anachronistic. And is not the reality of why this story did not surface until now.
Yeah, including the NY Times, it was not related at all with their relentless push for their "crime is just a perception issue / GOP propaganda" narrative.
Edit: even in mid Sep, when it was pretty obvious, the NY was still trying to spin the narrative. Those who want to deny, feel free to continue doing so.
NY Times confirms that huge donors for Zeldin came as a consequence of the public safety debate:
>The stakes have only grown amid a huge outside spending campaign by a handful of ultrawealthy conservative donors seeking to capitalize on the public safety debate.
NY Times spins the narrative:
>As Ms. Hochul likes to point out, the state remains safer than some far smaller, many run by Republicans.
>
>But a rash of highly visible, violent episodes, especially on the New York City subways, in recent months have left many New Yorkers with at least the perception that parts of the state are growing markedly less safe.
NY Times spending time fishing for a quote about the "GOP propaganda" narrative on the streets, rather than investigating George Santos.
>“I want to make something crystal clear because they aren’t going to explain it to you in the media,” he said, adding: “They want to make us afraid.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/25/nyregion/hochul-zeldin-governor-ny.html
mission17 OP t1_j1aq25e wrote
That was quite literally not what was happening in The New York Times two months ago. And thus that is absolutely not the reason this did not happen. You very much understand this and understand you’re not being honest, anyways, so this will be my last comment clarifying it for everyone else here.
But furthermore The New York Times, or whatever your favorite liberal boogeyman newspaper may be, is not the only party responsible for fumbling the bag. Your favorite conservative outlets, if they actually have a fuck about holding the right accountable, equally could have uncovered this story. Or the Democratic Party. Or the Republican Party, if they actually cared about being represented by honest people. But they clearly do not.
MillennialNightmare t1_j1apqjm wrote
The New York Times also published multiple articles about crime in New York City. Saying they had a unilateral narrative that it was pure perception is a flat out lie.
mission17 OP t1_j1ayiw1 wrote
I’m not entertaining that user with any more replies but in their edits: 1) nothing that the Times was saying is remotely untrue, 2) only a small fraction of the crimes coverage is represented, with much of the Time coverage having actually insinuating the narrative of a crime wave, and 3) absolutely none of this coverage would’ve precluded research into the candidates.
It’s exhausting how they try to make the “Democrats/left-wing media/whoever wasn’t right wing enough” answer fit every problem they can think of, even if it just takes a total lie to get to that result.
Reticent_User t1_j19n143 wrote
So?
mission17 OP t1_j19r3r4 wrote
Lying about your sexuality while supporting anti-LGBTQ legislation is a bad thing.
Reticent_User t1_j1a5sjh wrote
What legislation did he support?
mission17 OP t1_j1a67sw wrote
> “I am openly gay, have never had an issue with my sexual identity in the past decade, and I can tell you and assure you, I will always be an advocate for LGBTQ folks,” Santos told USA Today in October, responding to criticism about his support for Florida’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay Bill” signed into law this year by GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis.
Fourth paragraph of the article.
prisoner_007 t1_j19zll2 wrote
He claimed to be living as an openly out and proud gay republican for over a decade and never experiencing any discrimination from the Republican Party because of it but was married to a woman less than 3 years ago. That fact combined with the discovery of his other lies calls into question his claim.
The_CerealDefense t1_j19og5v wrote
This just keeps getting stupider. How did this not get vetted