Santos

[Viker]

I wasn't speaking of Trump. Trump is a Christian, from his birth to the present day.

People aren't born Christian. They can be born into a Christian home or society but that's not what makes them a Christian. Quit treating Christianity like it's an ethnic or national identity. It's a religious choice only. One thing admirable about early Christianity is that it didn't give two cents about borders.

In fact, people claiming to be Christian to get votes is not what makes one a Christian either. Trump is more non-Christian than the average atheist. He's a pathological liar (just like Santos) and a cheat. He's obviously never changed. He may actually be mentally ill and may need help, in which he may find soon in a prison hospital.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I wonder whether he can be impeached.

This is what I found on that:

"Blount's impeachment trial—the first ever conducted—established the principle that Members of Congress and Senators were not “Civil Officers” under the Constitution, and accordingly, they could only be removed from office by a two-thirds vote for expulsion by their respective chambers." Impeachment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives.

 

[Estro Felino]

People aren't born Christian. They can be born into a Christian home or society but that's not what makes them a Christian. Quit treating Christianity like it's an ethnic or national identity. It's a religious choice only. One thing admirable about early Christianity is that it didn't give two cents about borders.

In fact, people claiming to be Christian to get votes is not what makes one a Christian either. Trump is more non-Christian than the average atheist. He's a pathological liar (just like Santos) and a cheat. He's obviously never changed. He may actually be mentally ill and may need help, in which he may find soon in a prison hospital.

I tend to separate religion from nationality. That said, I think spirituality plays an important role in a politician.

That's why I endorse, I really support Tulsi Gabbard because she's a very spiritual person...and is not a Christian as I am, so I am not biased.
But it deals with a politician who believes in something. That this worldly existence has a meaning.
Do leftists believe in something that transcends this ephemeral worldly dimension? Hardly.
That is why she left the Democratic Party.

Back to the topic...I was giving the example of Trump, not endorsing him.

 

[Viker]

I tend to separate religion from nationality. That said, I think spirituality plays an important role in a politician.

That's why I endorse, I really support Tulsi Gabbard because she's a very spiritual person...and is not a Christian as I am, so I am not biased.
But it deals with a politician who believes in something. That this worldly existence has a meaning.
Do leftists believe in something that transcends this ephemeral worldly dimension? Hardly.
That is why she left the Democratic Party.

Back to the topic...I was giving the example of Trump, not endorsing him.

Right now.... Trump isn't a believable and decent example.

 

[Heyo]

This is what I found on that:

"Blount's impeachment trial—the first ever conducted—established the principle that Members of Congress and Senators were not “Civil Officers” under the Constitution, and accordingly, they could only be removed from office by a two-thirds vote for expulsion by their respective chambers." Impeachment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives.

So Santos could be expulsed - if some of his party members would care about his lying. But they don't, as long as he's voting the party line. That's all that matters.

 

[Estro Felino]

Right now.... Trump isn't a believable and decent example.

That's understandable.
I would like to understand why Santos did that. Why he lied about his heritage. It makes no sense, really.

 

[Estro Felino]

So Santos could be expulsed - if some of his party members would care about his lying. But they don't, as long as he's voting the party line. That's all that matters.

In the United States they focus on who the politicians are. Not on the programs.
Their marital life, their children, their religion.
In Europe we vote for parties and ideologies (last time there were something like thirteen parties to choose from in the paper ballot), they vote for people, so people advertise themselves.

 

[Heyo]

In the United States they focus on who the politicians are. Not on the programs.
Their marital life, their children, their religion.
In Europe we vote for parties and ideologies (last time there were something like thirteen parties to choose from in the paper ballot), they vote for people, so people advertise themselves.

In theory. Practically, it seems to me, it is the other way around. Politicians who lie as blatantly as Walker or Santos wouldn't have a career in most of Europe, probably expelled or at least secretly disposed off by their own party. In the US you can be a habitual liar, fraud, adulterer and a completely incompetent and immoral person and get votes, even from "pious" people as long as the party line and the promises fit.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

In the UK a candidate for parliament can say almost anything about himself but not lie about other candidates.

A few years ago our parliamentary Tory candidate was elected after lying about the then liberal candidate. Who took him to the election court and won. The Tory, who was a government minister, was removed from office and banned by the court from standing again. In the resulting by-electiona labor candidate won, and has held this seat ever sice.

Election courts are rare but highly effective. However they are very expensive and a loser pays all the court costs. And of his opponent. This would be enough to bankrupt most candidates.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is what I found on that:

"Blount's impeachment trial—the first ever conducted—established the principle that Members of Congress and Senators were not “Civil Officers” under the Constitution, and accordingly, they could only be removed from office by a two-thirds vote for expulsion by their respective chambers." Impeachment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives.

That would be an interesting vote. It would require 100% of the Democrats to be joined by 35% of the Republicans to reach the 290 threshold. Depending on how the Santos expose evolves, getting 77 Republican votes might be conceivable.

Of course, the idea that the Republican controlled House would schedule such a vote seems pretty absurd.

 

[Altfish]

Santos has admitted to lying ("embellishing his resume"). He clearly lied about graduating from two universities when in fact he is not a college grad at all. He misrepresented his job history. He claimed to be a Jew when he is not.

What can legally be done when a politician so openly deceives those who vote for him?

Sounds like an ideal GOP candidate - he should go far,

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sounds like an ideal GOP candidate - he should go far,

The GOP appears to have sunk to new lows, but the depth is characterized more by opportunism and cowardice than by deceit. I suspect that a super-majority of the Party wishes that Santos never happened.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

By the way, this left-leaning New Republic opinion piece is interesting.

 

[Revoltingest]

Y'all have been lucky.
For a long while, nothing has compelled me to rhyme.
But Santos inspired doggerel.

This bozo was thought hitherto
a lettered and prosperous Jew.
Twas power he relished
And so he embellished
believing that it's nothing new.

 

[Revoltingest]

The GOP appears to have sunk to new lows, but the depth is characterized more by opportunism and cowardice than by deceit. I suspect that a super-majority of the Party wishes that Santos never happened.

Hey, it's just one guy.
Would Carlos Danger typify Democrats?

The current problems with Republicans aren't
related to this guy's bogus resume. It's not how
they get in office...it's what they do there,
eg, packing SCOTUS with anti-civil liberties types,
attempting insurrection, fomenting hatred & violence.

 

[Altfish]

The GOP appears to have sunk to new lows, but the depth is characterized more by opportunism and cowardice than by deceit. I suspect that a super-majority of the Party wishes that Santos never happened.

Don't you mean a silent majority of the party.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hey, it's just one guy.
Would Carlos Danger typify Democrats?

You get no points for raising deflection, tu quoque, and false equivalency to an art form.

 

[Revoltingest]

You get no points for raising deflection, tu quoque, and false equivalency to an art form.

Tis not deflection.
I criticized your prejudicial view that one Republican
who lied about his background typifies the whole
party, & is the problem with it. You don't apply this
rationale against Democrats....just the enemy.

To reiterate....
The current problems with Republicans aren't
related to this guy's bogus resume. It's not how
they get in office...it's what they do there,
eg, packing SCOTUS with anti-civil liberties types,
attempting insurrection, fomenting hatred & violence.

 

[YoursTrue]

I wasn't speaking of Trump. Trump is a Christian, from his birth to the present day.

Even *I* misunderstood that -- a true Christian is not by designation, but by actions. God is the judge, and I am thankful for that.

 

[pearl]

It seems to me that politicians should always say the truth...because honesty is a plus in politics, no matter how bothersome a truth is.

If the electorate doesn't like the truth, you are out of the race. Too many voters don't care about honesty, only promoting their own agenda.