Red Mosquito

Peeps wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:Wow. This Santos stuff is mind blowing.

It's like the mfers didn't even run a google search.

dont fool yourself. they knew. but they dont care because he won and it gives them a body. it's amazing to me that Al Franken resigned over a photograph that trump and others questioned and raised concerns about his character but just shrug their shoulders with a big ol "Meh" response

I meant like, why didnt the dems do it? Seems like it would have been an easy win.

Bi_3 wrote:

Peeps wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:Wow. This Santos stuff is mind blowing.

It's like the mfers didn't even run a google search.

dont fool yourself. they knew. but they dont care because he won and it gives them a body. it's amazing to me that Al Franken resigned over a photograph that trump and others questioned and raised concerns about his character but just shrug their shoulders with a big ol "Meh" response

I meant like, why didnt the dems do it? Seems like it would have been an easy win.

while the dems are all about the power too they also understand the perception they have with their base.

to me the R's are all about stopping the dems (what wease said) and will do everything in the power to do so to appease their base. the dems at least have a shred of decency in relation to that sort of thing. i believe had a santos been elected as a D he would have been removed from congress and probably some type of charges brought against him for his lies

Peeps wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Peeps wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:Wow. This Santos stuff is mind blowing.

It's like the mfers didn't even run a google search.

dont fool yourself. they knew. but they dont care because he won and it gives them a body. it's amazing to me that Al Franken resigned over a photograph that trump and others questioned and raised concerns about his character but just shrug their shoulders with a big ol "Meh" response

I meant like, why didnt the dems do it? Seems like it would have been an easy win.

while the dems are all about the power too they also understand the perception they have with their base.

to me the R's are all about stopping the dems (what wease said) and will do everything in the power to do so to appease their base. the dems at least have a shred of decency in relation to that sort of thing. i believe had a santos been elected as a D he would have been removed from congress and probably some type of charges brought against him for his lies

Whether you're right about the difference between Dems and Reps, if each side had known about his lies and all of that wouldn't Dems have used that info against him during the election? And if the answer is that the Dems didn't know, doesn't that open the door to the possibility that Reps didn't know either?

Reps knew Santos was a con man back in 2020. His Rep opposition underestimated him.

His Dem opposition in 2022 claimed to not have sufficient funds to investigate him.

spike wrote:Reps knew Santos was a con man back in 2020. His Rep opposition underestimated him.

His Dem opposition in 2022 claimed to not have sufficient funds to investigate him.

Weird. If that's the case it seems like Democrats blew a pretty good opportunity.

4/5 wrote:

spike wrote:Reps knew Santos was a con man back in 2020. His Rep opposition underestimated him.

His Dem opposition in 2022 claimed to not have sufficient funds to investigate him.

Weird. If that's the case it seems like Democrats blew a pretty good opportunity.

Exactly. Seems like a choice. Maybe some 4d chess to get an appointed replacement? (And let's not pretend they couldn't have gotten this done quietly by activists or college-age volunteers for free)


I'm not blaming the Dems for him still being there, if the red team had a shred of dignity they would have booted him already.

4/5 wrote:

spike wrote:Reps knew Santos was a con man back in 2020. His Rep opposition underestimated him.

His Dem opposition in 2022 claimed to not have sufficient funds to investigate him.

Weird. If that's the case it seems like Democrats blew a pretty good opportunity.

It’s on brand.

Gonna post this thread before Bi_3 can post it with his usual "I hate this guy I'm totally a libtard like you guys but he has a great point" schtick.

What?

I get it, but I also don't get it.

B wrote:I get it, but I also don't get it.

That people believe ideologically inconsistent late-90s liberalism should not be a surprise to anyone on a 20 year old fan-run Pearl Jam message board.

Placeholder for what I hope are some real bangers tomorrow after whatever Sam Smith does at the Grammys tonight.

https://alaskapublic.org/2023/02/22/ala ... se-deaths/

Could a child dying from abuse actually benefit society, Eastman asked hypothetically.

“It can be argued, periodically, that it’s actually a cost savings because that child is not going to need any of those government services that they might otherwise be entitled to receive and need based on growing up in this type of environment,” he said.

Rep. David Eastman, R-Wasilla

This has to be fake, but I hope it's not.

B wrote:This has to be fake, but I hope it's not.

As difficult as it is to believe, Aaron Rupar is a real person.

Bi_3 wrote:Placeholder for what I hope are some real bangers tomorrow after whatever Sam Smith does at the Grammys tonight.

You let us down on this one

B wrote:https://alaskapublic.org/2023/02/22/alaska-house-censures-rep-eastman-for-comments-about-the-economic-benefit-of-child-abuse-deaths/

Could a child dying from abuse actually benefit society, Eastman asked hypothetically.

“It can be argued, periodically, that it’s actually a cost savings because that child is not going to need any of those government services that they might otherwise be entitled to receive and need based on growing up in this type of environment,” he said.

Rep. David Eastman, R-Wasilla

If that's the case, he should be on board with abortions.

blueviper wrote:

B wrote:https://alaskapublic.org/2023/02/22/ala ... se-deaths/

Could a child dying from abuse actually benefit society, Eastman asked hypothetically.

“It can be argued, periodically, that it’s actually a cost savings because that child is not going to need any of those government services that they might otherwise be entitled to receive and need based on growing up in this type of environment,” he said.

Rep. David Eastman, R-Wasilla

If that's the case, he should be on board with abortions.

He is not.

https://davideastman.org/on-the-issues/protecting-life/

B wrote:

blueviper wrote:

B wrote:https://alaskapublic.org/2023/02/22/ala ... se-deaths/

Could a child dying from abuse actually benefit society, Eastman asked hypothetically.

“It can be argued, periodically, that it’s actually a cost savings because that child is not going to need any of those government services that they might otherwise be entitled to receive and need based on growing up in this type of environment,” he said.

Rep. David Eastman, R-Wasilla

If that's the case, he should be on board with abortions.

He is not.

https://davideastman.org/on-the-issues/protecting-life/

Surprised he just doesn't want to cut out the middle man and not have kids at all. Think of the savings!

Vivek, though horribly overexposed, is spot on with messaging for a huge portion of the electorate.