this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
96 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2688 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A Republican-led effort to oust Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) from Congress failed Wednesday, allowing the embattled GOP lawmaker to remain in the House despite mounting legal and political troubles.

The chamber voted 179-213-19 on a resolution to oust Santos from office, far short of the two-thirds threshold needed to expel a member of Congress. Twenty-four Republicans voted to expel Santos while 31 Democrats voted to keep him in place. Nineteen lawmakers voted present, 15 of them Democrats.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

Voters should have the ability to recall it's representatives.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

while 31 Democrats voted to keep him in place

tf

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Democrats voted to keep him in place. Nineteen lawmakers voted present, 15 of them Democrats.

I know why they are doing this, because they want to run against him in the next election.

But, that is some seriously fucked up shit. This guys is a con artist and should not be in a position of power.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

They are waiting for a committee to release their investigation first. That is supposed to happen by 11/17.

They dovthis because as obvious as it is that Santos is a crook its just as "obvious" to republicans that Biden is guilty of who knows what.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Had 100% of Democrats voted to expel him. The vote still would have failed. Getting upset at what some Democrats did in this instance is the exact opposite thing we should be getting worked up about. Missing the point. 90% of Republicans voted against it. And that's the problem.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Democrats that broke with the party to vote for Santos are the ones who caused these muddled stories. That he would have been kept alive by Republicans anyways makes those votes even worse. We could have had stories about "only 24 Republicans vote to expel Santos", but instead we get all this reporting about Democrats. None of the Democrats who voted for Santos should be surprised that they're becoming the focus of the vote and it's their fault for playing into that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. We never could have. People like yourself are much too easy to stir up disingenuously. And the media will always criticize Democrats for not going above and beyond to stop Republicans. But never focus enough on just how bad Republicans are

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

People like yourself are much too easy to stir up disingenuously.

Oh fuck off.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly.

They know it's an easy w in 2024 against Santos. Less of a w if it's a Republican without the baggage

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

To be fair, republicans accumulate baggage faster than a budget airline's lost luggage desk.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

From the article:

It also comes a day after the House Ethics Committee announced it would reveal its “next course of action” in the months-long investigation by Nov. 17. Rep. Anthony D’Esposito (R-N.Y.), who led the expulsion effort against Santos, said he believed the looming update from the Ethics panel drove some lawmakers to vote against the legislation.

“There’s no question that the memo that they put out definitely gave some of our colleagues the ability to say let’s hold off for the two weeks and see where the report leads up, which is fine,” D’Esposito told reporters following the vote.

[–] krayj 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The vote was an attempt to expel without waiting for due process to run its course. There is an ethics investigation that will wrap up in under 2 weeks.

Many of the democrats who voted not to expel did so because they didn't want to see a new precedent set in congress where the body can expel a member without some form of due process. If all it takes is a vote to eject someone, then the party in power would be able to expell at will, and that would be bad for everyone.

Also, republicans were trying to get rid of him as a publicity stunt to look better for the Nov 2023 elections running across the country and wanted to be able to pull this stunt off to make themselves look better to help their regional elections.

The democrat holdouts are eager to expel just as soon as the ethics investigation is complete. Those holdout democrats are playing 4d chess and winning. They made the right call.

Rep. Jeff Jackson explains it nicely here:

https://youtu.be/QEvUmJ4gpWM?si=UbhtJhGhDrKvcRrJ