including stealing money from his campaign, deceiving donors about how contributions would be used
I bet this was the real reason he was expelled. Congressmen rely on donations for their grift, and their donors were no doubt asking if they supported his practice.
Hell, he literally stole money from another Republican Congressman and his wife.
You almost have to respect it.
For how blatant his lies and fabrications were, and how brazenly he stole and misued money, I'm honestly impressed that he got into office in the first place (who tf was running his opponent's campaign?). Surviving 11 months after that was just standard "Republicans refusing to hold each other accountable" behavior. But man, gotta admit the guy pulled off a pretty decent con.
I’m honestly impressed that he got into office in the first place (who tf was running his opponent’s campaign?).
His opponent repeatedly tried to blow the whistle at what was going on with Santos' campaign, but was all but ignored by the media who considered it a low-level race not worth covering. I think it took about a month after the election before the media started to actually give a damn.
The GOP wants blackmail and leverage options, and only when they have the power.
Santos's lies were pretty clear, blatant, and he was grifting his own party. Useless as an asset, and detrimental to his own people.
He is from a safe very red district so the craziest person wins the primary and then basically gets in free after that.
It's a blue district, though only D+2 (meaning it tends to be 2 points more towards Dems than the national average). It did vote for Bush in 2004, but is otherwise straight blue for President since 1992. Most recently went for Biden by +10 points.
Republicans have historically held that seat with very large majorities. Over 70% during Bush and Obama presidencies. Trump was enough to drag it down but then as soon as he was off the ballot it's back to crazy land Republicans. I might be wrong but to me that says deep red.
I don't even think that deceiving donors was the line. I think it was exactly what he bought. OnlyFans? Scandalous. Botox for a man? Shameful. If he'd bought guns and an F350, or just Venmo'd a high school student, he'd still a congressman.
Friendly reminder that OnlyFans talking about banning porn on their platform was just a cover to distract from the news story about them allowing users hosting child porn, prostitution and other illegal material to get away with warnings, so long as their accounts were profitable.
While the child porn and other things is pretty bad, why include prostitution?
Because it's illegal to solicit prostitution in most countries. The other common illegal content was scat. That was the point of the exposé, to highlight that they were allowing illegal users making illegal content on their platform to get away with warnings - I mean, how can you merely warn someone who is underage that they should stop posting underage content?!
Fair enough, though it does still seem a bit odd to list prostitution in particular. Whats the joke? If you fuck while recording it it aint prostitution.
Exactly. It's like Bernie Madoff. Bernie was doing the same thing as everyone else in 2008, but his clients were all rich folks. He went to jail. The hilarious thing is that Donald Trump was interviewed about Bernie and even Donnie had to admit that it was mostly victimless, because everyone Madoff had stolen from could afford the loses.
Bernie is an interesting case. As part of his guilty plea, he admitted that from around 1990 onward, basically every transaction in his company was fraudulent. The actual start was probably at the beginning of his company in the '70s.
What makes that interesting is that his clients weren't just rich, but experienced. They knew how to smell out a con. He was able to keep his claims just plausible enough that they didn't notice for decades.
A lot of Ponzi schemes will claim 300% or 5000% percent returns in a year. Experienced investors know that's bullshit; maybe you can get lucky in one or two trades, but it's never sustainable. The SP500 will tend to give you returns of 8% or so in the long run (with plenty of year to year variation), and it's hard to beat that while accounting for transaction costs. Bernie was claiming 15-20%, which is good, but not crazy.
imho, they all knew it was a scam, but they all figured that they were the insiders and only the rubes were getting fleeced.
Bernie was doing the same thing as everyone else in 2008, but his clients were all rich folks.
CITATION NEEDED
Lots of companies were using legal but sketchy as hell financial instruments and over inflating safety on investments where lots of people lost lots of money. Bernie was different. He was creating fraudulent statements saying you had money in your account with him for years and only paying out with what other new investors put in; classic Ponzi scheme.
What other large Ponzi schemes at the time are you saying were occurring?
What other large Ponzi schemes at the time are you saying were occurring?
Of course, these weren't schemes or a rip off because it was 'legal.'
Yes. That's a fundamentally different situation than a ponzi scheme
Of course, these weren’t schemes or a rip off because it was ‘legal.’
Now you've got it. One was unethical but legal (most of the housing crisis), Madoff was breaking established written law. Only Madoff was the Ponzi scheme.
You should learn to recognize sarcasm.
I could have done that and called into question your naive understanding of financial transactions. However, I wanted to keep from insulting you, but it looks like you've removed that opportunity.
You funny.
Shame on you for not laundering the money through a book deal!
I bet this was the real reason he was expelled. Congressmen rely on donations for their grift, and their donors were no doubt asking if they supported his practice.
Hell, he literally stole money from another Republican Congressman and his wife.
You almost have to respect it.
For how blatant his lies and fabrications were, and how brazenly he stole and misued money, I'm honestly impressed that he got into office in the first place (who tf was running his opponent's campaign?). Surviving 11 months after that was just standard "Republicans refusing to hold each other accountable" behavior. But man, gotta admit the guy pulled off a pretty decent con.
His opponent repeatedly tried to blow the whistle at what was going on with Santos' campaign, but was all but ignored by the media who considered it a low-level race not worth covering. I think it took about a month after the election before the media started to actually give a damn.
The GOP wants blackmail and leverage options, and only when they have the power.
Santos's lies were pretty clear, blatant, and he was grifting his own party. Useless as an asset, and detrimental to his own people.
He is from a safe very red district so the craziest person wins the primary and then basically gets in free after that.
It's a blue district, though only D+2 (meaning it tends to be 2 points more towards Dems than the national average). It did vote for Bush in 2004, but is otherwise straight blue for President since 1992. Most recently went for Biden by +10 points.
Republicans have historically held that seat with very large majorities. Over 70% during Bush and Obama presidencies. Trump was enough to drag it down but then as soon as he was off the ballot it's back to crazy land Republicans. I might be wrong but to me that says deep red.
I don't even think that deceiving donors was the line. I think it was exactly what he bought. OnlyFans? Scandalous. Botox for a man? Shameful. If he'd bought guns and an F350, or just Venmo'd a high school student, he'd still a congressman.
Friendly reminder that OnlyFans talking about banning porn on their platform was just a cover to distract from the news story about them allowing users hosting child porn, prostitution and other illegal material to get away with warnings, so long as their accounts were profitable.
While the child porn and other things is pretty bad, why include prostitution?
Because it's illegal to solicit prostitution in most countries. The other common illegal content was scat. That was the point of the exposé, to highlight that they were allowing illegal users making illegal content on their platform to get away with warnings - I mean, how can you merely warn someone who is underage that they should stop posting underage content?!
Fair enough, though it does still seem a bit odd to list prostitution in particular. Whats the joke? If you fuck while recording it it aint prostitution.
Exactly. It's like Bernie Madoff. Bernie was doing the same thing as everyone else in 2008, but his clients were all rich folks. He went to jail. The hilarious thing is that Donald Trump was interviewed about Bernie and even Donnie had to admit that it was mostly victimless, because everyone Madoff had stolen from could afford the loses.
Bernie is an interesting case. As part of his guilty plea, he admitted that from around 1990 onward, basically every transaction in his company was fraudulent. The actual start was probably at the beginning of his company in the '70s.
What makes that interesting is that his clients weren't just rich, but experienced. They knew how to smell out a con. He was able to keep his claims just plausible enough that they didn't notice for decades.
A lot of Ponzi schemes will claim 300% or 5000% percent returns in a year. Experienced investors know that's bullshit; maybe you can get lucky in one or two trades, but it's never sustainable. The SP500 will tend to give you returns of 8% or so in the long run (with plenty of year to year variation), and it's hard to beat that while accounting for transaction costs. Bernie was claiming 15-20%, which is good, but not crazy.
imho, they all knew it was a scam, but they all figured that they were the insiders and only the rubes were getting fleeced.
CITATION NEEDED
Lots of companies were using legal but sketchy as hell financial instruments and over inflating safety on investments where lots of people lost lots of money. Bernie was different. He was creating fraudulent statements saying you had money in your account with him for years and only paying out with what other new investors put in; classic Ponzi scheme.
What other large Ponzi schemes at the time are you saying were occurring?
You're kidding, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_financial_crisis
Of course, these weren't schemes or a rip off because it was 'legal.'
Yes. That's a fundamentally different situation than a ponzi scheme
Now you've got it. One was unethical but legal (most of the housing crisis), Madoff was breaking established written law. Only Madoff was the Ponzi scheme.
You should learn to recognize sarcasm.
I could have done that and called into question your naive understanding of financial transactions. However, I wanted to keep from insulting you, but it looks like you've removed that opportunity.
You funny.
Shame on you for not laundering the money through a book deal!