Not sure how you’re able to divine the mind of George Santos.
So, like, when someone makes a racist joke because they’re actually a racist, versus someone who makes a racist joke because they think it’s edgy and cool? You know what I call people who make racist jokes because they think they’re edgy and cool? Hint: not “not a racist.”
Pretending to be a racist in order to “troll the libs”, thus signaling to the sorts of racist lowlives that think that “trolling the libs” is a positive thing for their elected officials to do that he is “one of them”, is EXACTLY how a dogwhistle works.
…I prefer not to use an old school ableist word, and think that an “over-the-top cartoon villain” who is “one-step-away from twilling his moustache” who is “cozying up to the alt-right (who probably almost certainly helped fund him and win his seat)” is a much more accurate and precise characterization of his actions and behaviour than being “seriously mentally ill.”
He was trolling and dog whistling at the same time. This is what they do. It isn’t a big mystery. And is totally consistent with everything else that Santos has done. And not IMHO a sign of mental illness at all.
You do you.
Medically there are indeed people with serious psychiatric problems, who do things that are completely irrational and self-harmful, not with intent to troll or dog whistle. This, in this context, is bizarre enough, of no benefit and only harm to his own self, to make me wonder if that is the case.
I could be wrong, of course.
…we are talking about a photo of a guy making a symbol with his hand, right?
I’d be loath to suggest that this photo proves this person is suffering from serious psychiatric problems, who might do things that are completely irrational and self-harmful.
But you do you.
Especially when there is a perfectly clear and rational, if odious, reason for him to take that action, and the person inbquestion is well known for having taken odious actions in the past.
This guy disagrees.
That’s the part that flies past me. His best interest is to lay low, stick to his innocent embellishments bit, and call as little attention to himself as possible. Loyal minion.
Going from falsely claiming identity as family of Holocaust victims, to courting support of White Power elements? In his district, one in which claiming Jewish identity was a vote getter? In a House that has its White Power adherents, anti-Semites, sure, but not most, and also hanging by a thread re discipline?
I don’t get how that is other than self-harm.
That’s where you’re wrong. His best bet is to appeal to his base, who gobble the dogwhistles and the trolling right up.
Santos likely has no actual desire to be in congress, except in so far as, “Former Congressman George Santos,” is really going to burnish his future grifts. With the revelations about his background out now, he’s likely got no chance at re-election anyway. Appealing/appeasing his voters means absolutely nothing to him now. His main concern (other than avoiding Brazilian prisons) is setting up his next grift, of which this is no doubt a part.
But there are not that many of that “base” in his district. And many more of the type who will use this as motivation to punt him in two years. My prediction: He will be primaried and will not run in 2024.
Really – in 2024 both parties will… ok, should, run the election in that district like (gasp!) an election that matters and that needs bothering with actual competition. In 2022 in the face of a seat left open by a succesful Democrat, the Republicans did not even have a primary but just ran the same guy the outgoing incumbent had easily beat, but at least the fictional character on the ballot was an interesting, exciting candidate, while the Dems ran some anodyne party regular.
The local Republican apparatus is from all reports just mad at themselves over this… especially because that BS with “Jew-ish” pisses off a critical local constituency. So let’s see them begin to take corrective measures…
Snopes disagrees:
Moderating:
Let’s drop the side discussion about Santos and his gesture. The topic is how George Santos slipped through and got elected in spite of his false resume. We’re far afield of that.
My original question was whether the Democrats dropped the ball on this issue during the campaign or if there was an active discussion of this issue prior to the election that I hadn’t heard about. And that question has been answered.
As the OP, I have no problem if people want to turn this thread into a general discussion of George Santos or a joke thread about George Santos. Or if you want to close it down as a resolved thread.
The problem is that if a hijack is permitted in this thread, then it opens the door for hijacks to be permitted in other threads.
Opening a thread does not confer “ownership” of the thread. We rarely close threads at the request of an OP. Even if you feel your original question has been answered, the thread remains open because others may have more to contribute on the topic.
We will nonetheless limit hijacks when they occur.
Right, the only defining characteristic he needs to have is “owning the libs”. All else is 100% irrelevant.
He’s just a boy from Brazil.
Thread winner.