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 am sympathetic to the 'precedent' argument but I think Santos is unique in his level of fraud and the amount of proof that is available. We know he did at least some fraud for sure, and it's with his campaign funds.
That's just a little different than a congressman getting caught being a domestic abuser or something where it's definitely worth kicking them out but it's not related to their job and the Ethics Committee isn't going to find proof the same way.
If your employer discovers you lied on your resume, you’re going to get fired. He not only blatantly falsified his biography in order to make himself a viable candidate, he then used his campaign as a grift for his personal enrichment.
Just like with Trump, I don’t think “precedent” applies here, because the actions they took were without precedent. At any other time, these people would have resigned in shame or been pushed out by their party. Nixon only left office when it became obvious he would be removed from office in a bipartisan vote. The current gop is going to make sure that never happens again.
Precedent would have seen Santos (and others) resign. I don’t think we realized how much of our government’s power was built around the idea of good faith, but since Trump that’s been completely destroyed. The new precedent needs to recognize that the entire game has changed.