Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Wed Feb 08, 2023 9:41 pm**

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:29 pm “of all the Broadway shows to lie about having produced, Santos allegedly picked not Hamilton, not The Phantom of the Opera, not The Producers, not Bette Midler in Hello, Dolly!. He chose one of Broadway's most infamous productions, which reportedly lost a staggering $60 million of its investment even after a three-year drama-filled run.”

That actually makes sense to me. Far easier to make a claim on a stinker that the real producer probably wants people to forget, rather than a blockbuster like Hamilton.

Bit harder to get away with claiming to be Lin Manuel Miranda, than…???

Lying to gain office. Making promises of employment to people? Failed businesses prior to gaining office. “Embellishing “ your achievements. This man should be president not demeaned like this.

Posted: **Wed Feb 08, 2023 10:07 pm**

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2023 8:56 am**

So now it comes out he wrote bad checks for puppies, then turned around and "donated" them for an animal adoption "charity" he ran, then had the bad check charges covered up???

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2023 9:29 am**

Look at this crazy.

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2023 10:08 am**

I’m not allowed to read it.

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2023 11:18 am**

Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 10:08 am I’m not allowed to read it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230210150 ... biography/

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2023 12:11 pm**

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 11:18 am
Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 10:08 am I’m not allowed to read it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230210150 ... biography/

Clever. Very clever.

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2023 1:48 pm**

Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 12:11 pm
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 11:18 am
Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 10:08 am I’m not allowed to read it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230210150 ... biography/
Clever. Very clever.

That's what I was thinking. If google can scrape a link but then it's paywalled then this could be good for me. I don't care about sites doing pay to play but I hate when google links to them like their search is a thing of record but then I'm excluded. How's about letting me opt in to including pay site into my search then forcing me to opt out to each one individually?

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2023 1:59 pm**

pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 9:29 am Look at this crazy.

But has anyone seen Luna and Santos in the same room at the same time?

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:37 pm**

Daveman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 8:56 am So now it comes out he wrote bad checks for puppies, then turned around and "donated" them for an animal adoption "charity" he ran, then had the bad check charges covered up???

Well it's not like he did anything really horrifying like call for meaningful gun control or better health care coverage like some socialist. Sheesh!

The more terrifying question however is just what happened to the puppies...

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:38 pm**

Tweet has been deleted.

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2023 5:22 pm**

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:38 pm Tweet has been deleted.

It looks like she opted to simply retweet this.

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2023 7:57 pm**

How long before the GOP just straight-up praises serial grifting as "exactly the kind of entrepreneurship that built this country"?

I mean, they'll be right, but not in the way they intend.

Posted: **Sat Feb 11, 2023 12:23 pm**

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 7:57 pm How long before the GOP just straight-up praises serial grifting as "exactly the kind of entrepreneurship that built this country"?

I mean, they'll be right, but not in the way they intend.

That was already at least signaled when Trump was running for office. His questionable business/wealth/tax behavior was met with "that just shows he's a great businessman". Specifically regarding the tax issues, "he's savvy". Hell, he said that himself IIRC.

Posted: **Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:55 pm**

If you can get away with it, it's not wrong. That's where we are now.

Posted: **Sat Feb 11, 2023 8:15 pm**

LawBeefaroni wrote:If you can get away with it, it's not wrong. That's where we are now.

And also, we'd (the GOP) will pass policy to enable one to get away with it (as long as you fund the GOP, if you don't, then, well, it's a shame you got investigated and lost your grift...)

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2023 5:50 pm**

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:55 pm If you can get away with it, it's not wrong. That's where we are now.

Exactly.

And the defense is ‘well, The Government is so corrupt that it’s justifiable and you have to create your own shortcuts”

Posted: **Fri Feb 17, 2023 5:17 pm**

Heh. The Tennessee George Santos...

https://boingboing.net/2023/02/17/georg ... he-is.html

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

Posted: **Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:39 am**

At least he is honest about this:

Posted: **Tue Feb 21, 2023 10:58 am**

He is so honest about his dishonesty:

Posted: **Tue Feb 21, 2023 11:05 am**

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 10:58 am He is so honest about his dishonesty:

Is the official Freedom Caucus mantra?

Posted: **Tue Feb 21, 2023 2:36 pm**

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 10:58 am He is so honest about his dishonesty:

The key line for those who don't see tweets/click through:

“I wasn’t trying to trick the people. I was trying to get accepted by the party…which required tricking the people.”

of course, given all the apparently illegal financial shenanigans, this isn't the whole story...

Posted: **Tue Feb 21, 2023 3:26 pm**

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 10:58 am He is so honest about his dishonesty:

It’s almost refreshing. Almost.

Posted: **Wed Feb 22, 2023 2:05 pm**

I actually get what he’s saying, I just don’t think it’s the defense he presumes it to be.

‘I lied to the party to get the job, not directly to the voters.’

The fact that he can so calmly go on air and answer this way without breaking a sweat shows how broken our system of accountability is these days.

If we want to extrapolate from Trump, we might assume that some righty voters even have a level of respect for the kind of chicanery he showed…’do whatever it takes to win’ plays well with a lot more Americans than the rest of us are comfortable admitting I think.

Certainly keeps me up at night.

Posted: **Wed Feb 22, 2023 2:20 pm**

I don't think this is too hard to parse. He's admitting he openly lied because he knew no one would hold him accountable - like the media. As long as he's voting for awful GOP things, he can say whatever is necessary to get himself into the position. It is refreshing, but it's also an indictment of our electoral process, the electorate and the media. Nothing matters if you're going to do what you're told when you're told by party leadership.

Posted: **Thu Mar 02, 2023 4:11 pm**

He’s toast:

Posted: **Thu Mar 02, 2023 4:18 pm**

Grifman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 4:11 pm He’s toast:

I honestly can't tell whether this is earnest or sarcastic.

Obviously Santos's conduct is extreme even by congressional / GOP sleaze standards. But all the same, unless McCarthy can find a way to reliably replace Santos with another Republican, I find it hard to believe that he would ever support expulsion, and I doubt Santos would ever agree to resign.

Posted: **Thu Mar 02, 2023 4:46 pm**

The finger wagging that will come out of this investigation will be fierce. Also note they announced a referral for investigation into AOC. Probably for driving Matt Gaetz crazy with lust.

Posted: **Thu Mar 02, 2023 5:24 pm**

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 4:18 pm
Grifman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 4:11 pm He’s toast:

I honestly can't tell whether this is earnest or sarcastic.

Obviously Santos's conduct is extreme even by congressional / GOP sleaze standards. But all the same, unless McCarthy can find a way to reliably replace Santos with another Republican, I find it hard to believe that he would ever support expulsion, and I doubt Santos would ever agree to resign.

Why have an investigation if you aren't willing to toss him out? They are going to come up with even more bad evidence against him than what exists now. Why make things worse for you than they are are now with an investigation?

Besides, the statement, "He's toast" doesn't necessarily mean that he is removed by the House. It just means he won't be re-elected - he'll either resign, choose not to run for re-election, be removed from Congress, indicted for a crime, or defeated in a Republican primary. This is just the final straw.

Posted: **Thu Mar 02, 2023 5:45 pm**

Grifman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 5:24 pm Why have an investigation if you aren't willing to toss him out? They are going to come up with even more bad evidence against him than what exists now.

So they can exonerate him?

Posted: **Thu Mar 02, 2023 7:17 pm**

Leverage?

And, no, I'm not going to get a screenshot from that movie...

Posted: **Fri Mar 03, 2023 6:37 am**

Grifman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 5:24 pm
El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 4:18 pm
Grifman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 4:11 pm He’s toast:

I honestly can't tell whether this is earnest or sarcastic.

Obviously Santos's conduct is extreme even by congressional / GOP sleaze standards. But all the same, unless McCarthy can find a way to reliably replace Santos with another Republican, I find it hard to believe that he would ever support expulsion, and I doubt Santos would ever agree to resign.
Why have an investigation if you aren't willing to toss him out?

Honestly because it probably is almost certainly performative. He is embarrassing to them at some level and they get to say they took it seriously without actually doing it for real.

They are going to come up with even more bad evidence against him than what exists now. Why make things worse for you than they are are now with an investigation?

They may just confirm the "big rocks" out in the public record. It doesn't necessarily have to make it worse other than attach the ethics investigation label on him. Which at this point is not a big deal.

Besides, the statement, "He's toast" doesn't necessarily mean that he is removed by the House. It just means he won't be re-elected - he'll either resign, choose not to run for re-election, be removed from Congress, indicted for a crime, or defeated in a Republican primary. This is just the final straw.

Probably but we may just learn our democracy has sunk to new lows.

Posted: **Fri Mar 03, 2023 10:36 am**

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 6:37 am Which at this point is not a big deal a badge of honor.

perhaps even more accurate.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2023 5:32 pm**

Grifman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 5:24 pm
El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 4:18 pm
Grifman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 4:11 pm He’s toast:

I honestly can't tell whether this is earnest or sarcastic.

Obviously Santos's conduct is extreme even by congressional / GOP sleaze standards. But all the same, unless McCarthy can find a way to reliably replace Santos with another Republican, I find it hard to believe that he would ever support expulsion, and I doubt Santos would ever agree to resign.
Why have an investigation if you aren't willing to toss him out? They are going to come up with even more bad evidence against him than what exists now. Why make things worse for you than they are are now with an investigation?

Besides, the statement, "He's toast" doesn't necessarily mean that he is removed by the House. It just means he won't be re-elected - he'll either resign, choose not to run for re-election, be removed from Congress, indicted for a crime, or defeated in a Republican primary. This is just the final straw.

I expect that they'll give him some kind of punishment. But the only thing that really matters is whether he is expelled or not. I wouldn't say it's 100% out of the question that McCarthy will support expulsion, especially if there's even worse shit looming in Santos's past, but I don't think it's likely.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2023 6:06 pm**

They're not even going to be able to issue a statement of censure, mark my words.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2023 7:32 pm**

In the summer of 2014, eight years before his election to the U.S. House of Representatives, George Santos was in Queens Housing Court, begging a judge to let him feed his pet fish.

Santos, then 26, had recently been evicted for failing to pay rent on a two-bedroom apartment in Jackson Heights that he shared with his mother, sister and a rotating cast of roommates. He needed to get back inside, he told the judge, “so I can get my belongings and feed my fish.”

“I have a big fish tank,” Santos added, according to audio of the court hearing.

As with so many of his statements, there is cause for doubt. Yasser Rabello, a former friend who lived in the apartment with Santos, said he had no recollection of a fish, let alone a large tank of them.

“That’s a lie, too,” Rabello said. “He’s a pathological liar.”

...

Along with public records and interviews with his former housemates, they provide a fuller picture of Santos as a habitually delinquent tenant, desperately fighting one eviction after another in the years before he become the Republican representative for northern Long Island and northeastern Queens.

Another roommate in the same apartment, Gregory Morey Parker, recalled lending Santos rent money, adding that there were “eviction notices monthly.”

This is supposedly when he was making big bucks at Goldman Sachs. Which was, of course, bullshit.

He absolutely needs to be gone. Not only is he a liar, he's the exact opposite of who he purports to be.

https://gothamist.com/news/listen-georg ... assistance

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2023 7:43 pm**

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2023 7:32 pm
He absolutely needs to be gone.

He votes "Yes" on everything the House GOP proposes.

Just imagine if the media did half of the investigative legwork they're doing now prior to his election.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2023 7:45 pm**

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2023 7:43 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2023 7:32 pm
He absolutely needs to be gone.

He votes "Yes" on everything the House GOP proposes.

True. What we need and what we get are rarely the same with the House of Shit.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2023 7:45 pm**

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2023 7:43 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2023 7:32 pm
He absolutely needs to be gone.

He votes "Yes" on everything the House GOP proposes.

Isn't he part of the "Freedom Caucus" who don't vote yes on everything the GOP proposes unless they get extra juice?

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2023 7:47 pm**

I mean George Santos has to get his beak wet. But he'll vote yes when it's required.

Octopus Overlords

The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus

Re: The George Santos Circus