• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I’m Deeply Flawed’: Anthony Weiner, AKA ‘Carlos Danger,’ Now Admits Still Sexting

Captain Adverse said:
First of all, how does "sexting" someone automatically equate to being a "sexual predator?" Even if the person doing so is married that remains an issue of fidelity between the two spouses, not sexual predation.

That said, I have met Mr. Weiner several times, having lived in his district in NYC (the borough of Queens). Were I still living there I would not vote for him because I found him to be a man who tried to be all things to all people, thus actually representing no one other than whatever his own personal agenda was.

As far as sexting, I feel the same about that as I did about Clinton's fooling around...it has nothing to do with a job in government (unless your job is to handle sexual harrassment issues).
Click to expand...

As a politician he has to consider how his actions will be perceived by voters. This simple admonition is apparently beyond him. He has no control over his own urges, which is not a good sign.
 
LowDown said:
As a politician he has to consider how his actions will be perceived by voters.
Click to expand...

Didn't seem to affect Craig, Vitter, Rangel and Sanford. I guess 'The People' have very low standards.
 
I really have nothing to say about this. But, I thought this would be an appropriate thread to post this picture:

 
Middleground said:
Didn't seem to affect Craig, Vitter, Rangel and Sanford. I guess 'The People' have very low standards.
Click to expand...

I'm sure all of these politicians would agree that their untoward actions were unwise.
 
LowDown said:
As a politician he has to consider how his actions will be perceived by voters. This simple admonition is apparently beyond him. He has no control over his own urges, which is not a good sign.
Click to expand...

This can be applied to most men (and many women). LOL ;)

As you can see from other responses I understand where this idea comes from, I just don't support it in all cases. IMO concerns should be aroused only when a person is acting in either a truly destructive pattern of behavior (i.e a psychopath, sociopath, pedophile, etc.) OR one which directly affects the actual perfomance of his duties (bribery, embezzelment, etc.). Otherwise what's the real problem?
 
Last edited:
Middleground said:
Didn't seem to affect Craig, Vitter, Rangel and Sanford. I guess 'The People' have very low standards.
Click to expand...

Or maybe people really don't care about that stuff anymore. They realize it's separate from how someone does their job.

I'm not going to hold a politician to a mythical standard in their personal lives. we are electing human beings, not supermen/women.
 
WI Crippler said:
Or maybe people really don't care about that stuff anymore. They realize it's separate from how someone does their job.

I'm not going to hold a politician to a mythical standard in their personal lives. we are electing human beings, not supermen/women.
Click to expand...

I don't expect a superman or superwoman. And I realize that we all are imperfect. But character isn't a role one puts on; it's who you are, and this doesn't change whether you're at home or at work.
 
Dapper Andy said:
Yeah but it certainly hasn't worked out too badly for her boss.

Career wise, anyway.

I don't know how either woman looks in the mirror at night but piles of money and power must make it a bit easier.
Click to expand...

Poster women for the term "marriage of convenience".
 
Captain Adverse said:
First of all, how does "sexting" someone automatically equate to being a "sexual predator?" Even if the person doing so is married that remains an issue of fidelity between the two spouses, not sexual predation.

That said, I have met Mr. Weiner several times, having lived in his district in NYC (the borough of Queens). Were I still living there I would not vote for him because I found him to be a man who tried to be all things to all people, thus actually representing no one other than whatever his own personal agenda was.

As far as sexting, I feel the same about that as I did about Clinton's fooling around...it has nothing to do with a job in government (unless your job is to handle sexual harrassment issues).
Click to expand...

My position on these kinds of things is if you can't be faithful to the commitment you make to your wife, why would I ever trust that you could be faithful to the commitments you make to the people who vote for you and to the oath of office you take, if fortunate enough to be elected. You're right, in that sexting or fooling around is not illegal and if you're caught, it's not grounds for losing your job or impeachment, but it's sure not a bright spot on your resume for reelection. I'd never vote again for someone like that nor ever trust them again with something I found important.
 
Captain Adverse said:
If we'd simply stop judging peoples ability to perform their duties by what they do in their private lives, blackmail wouldn't have much effect. Too bad that gossiping and being judgmental are common human characteristics.

In that sense you are correct, human foibles become hidden weaknesses that make public officials susceptible to blackmail.
Click to expand...

In a country of over 300 million people and a city like New York of almost 10 million people, are there no other people without the hidden weaknesses and human foibles capable of serving the people in such high offices? If you wouldn't want Anthony Weiner teaching your children, as an example, why would you want the man in a position where a rash or unreasoned decision could cost people their lives or their livelihoods?

If you find out after you elect him, fine, not your fault - if you find out before, and still give the man your vote, you're irresponsible and not taking your vote seriously.
 
CanadaJohn said:
In a country of over 300 million people and a city like New York of almost 10 million people, are there no other people without the hidden weaknesses and human foibles capable of serving the people in such high offices? ...If you find out after you elect him, fine, not your fault - if you find out before, and still give the man your vote, you're irresponsible and not taking your vote seriously.
Click to expand...

For the first question...truthfully? I doubt there is any person on the PLANET over the age of six who doesn't have something particularly nasty or embarrassing in their past to hide form public view, even if it's just that they have never grown out of being a bedwetter. The older you get, the more skeletons in the closet.

The trick is to focus on REAL issues, like major criminality or prior evidence of malfeasance (bribery, graft, embezzlement, etc.). What a person does in their private lives other than things like I listed is of no real concern IMO. The fact that we make them major concerns is what leads to ever higher levels of criminality, i.e. murder and blackmail.
 
Captain Adverse said:
For the first question...truthfully? I doubt there is any person on the PLANET over the age of six who doesn't have something particularly nasty or embarrassing in their past to hide form public view, even if it's just that they have never grown out of being a bedwetter. The older you get, the more skeletons in the closet.

The trick is to focus on REAL issues, like major criminality or prior evidence of malfeasance (bribery, graft, embezzlement, etc.). What a person does in their private lives other than things like I listed is of no real concern IMO. The fact that we make them major concerns is what leads to ever higher levels of criminality, i.e. murder and blackmail.
Click to expand...

To your first point, I'd agree, but what you did as a child that was wrong or inappropriate, you've hopefully grown out of as an adult - that's what growing up and learning how to be a contributing member of society is all about. If, however, you exhibit immoral or inappropriate behaviour as an adult, you're not getting my vote, no way, no how. If you haven't developed a minimal level of self-control and respect for yourself and others, I'm not going to hope you can work your way out of it on the job or you can put it in a box until your term in office is over.

As to your second point, I sure would be troubled that anyone running for office who was involved in "major criminality" or "bribery, graft, embesslement" had time to run for office and wasn't more concerned at the moment about whether or not to pick up the soap in the communal showerroom at the local penitentiary.

Finally, I'm actually heartened by the fact that people at least have a modicum of self-respect themselves and choose not to vote for such people. While politicians aren't necessarily role models they are, in effect, leaders and I sure don't want such people leading in my area.
 
CanadaJohn said:
To your first point, I'd agree, but what you did as a child that was wrong or inappropriate, you've hopefully grown out of as an adult - that's what growing up and learning how to be a contributing member of society is all about. If, however, you exhibit immoral or inappropriate behaviour as an adult, you're not getting my vote, no way, no how. If you haven't developed a minimal level of self-control and respect for yourself and others, I'm not going to hope you can work your way out of it on the job or you can put it in a box until your term in office is over.
Click to expand...

If any candidate was found to still be a bedwetter at his current age, don't you think the public might see this as a sign of weakness, a lack of control, and hold it against him in any election? We need to realize our leaders are HUMAN BEINGS, with strengths and weaknesses we all share. Holding them to higher standards should conform with this understanding.

If we elect a man and then discover he was involved in graft, of course he should resign or be removed from office. His action is a violation of his official duties, causing harm to the system and a betrayal of the public trust. If the man is a closet homosexual, who gives a crap?? This does not have anything to do with his public office. Using the example of sexting, suppose a married couple have an "open marriage" style arrangement and the public servant spouse gets caught by a gossip columnist sexting? Who was hurt? How does this affect the spouses public duties?

Regarding your second point, consider Nelson Mandela, who spent decades in prison for what was once "criminal behaviors." These included terrorist activities of bombing and sabotage (i.e. property was destroyed and people allegedly being killed). His side won eventually and so he became President. That's seems an extreme example, but history is replete with people who did wrong in their lives and then did lots of right afterwards. As far as I am concerned, once you've served your time you've paid for the crime...clean slate buddy.

CanadaJohn said:
Finally, I'm actually heartened by the fact that people at least have a modicum of self-respect themselves and choose not to vote for such people. While politicians aren't necessarily role models they are, in effect, leaders and I sure don't want such people leading in my area.
Click to expand...

Yes. People can vote how they choose on the basis of whatever reasons thay wish. I was only voicing my own opinion and regret that we tend to be an unforgiving and highly judmental sort of creature, us homo sapiens. I'd prefer we were better in this regard, that's all.
 
Captain Adverse said:
If any candidate was found to still be a bedwetter at his current age, don't you think the public might see this as a sign of weakness, a lack of control, and hold it against him in any election? We need to realize our leaders are HUMAN BEINGS, with strengths and weaknesses we all share. Holding them to higher standards should conform with this understanding.

If we elect a man and then discover he was involved in graft, of course he should resign or be removed from office. His action is a violation of his official duties, causing harm to the system and a betrayal of the public trust. If the man is a closet homosexual, who gives a crap?? This does not have anything to do with his public office. Using the example of sexting, suppose a married couple have an "open marriage" style arrangement and the public servant spouse gets caught by a gossip columnist sexting? Who was hurt? How does this affect the spouses public duties?

Regarding your second point, consider Nelson Mandela, who spent decades in prison for what was once "criminal behaviors." These included terrorist activities of bombing and sabotage (i.e. property was destroyed and people allegedly being killed). His side won eventually and so he became President. That's seems an extreme example, but history is replete with people who did wrong in their lives and then did lots of right afterwards. As far as I am concerned, once you've served your time you've paid for the crime...clean slate buddy.



Yes. People can vote how they choose on the basis of whatever reasons thay wish. I was only voicing my own opinion and regret that we tend to be an unforgiving and highly judmental sort of creature, us homo sapiens. I'd prefer we were better in this regard, that's all.
Click to expand...

You make a lot of fair points, but I'll only address the last one - America and Americans are perhaps the most forgiving and least judgemental when it comes to giving people second and third chances. It's one of the things I like most about America. But when you give a politician who screws up a second chance, let them have that second chance in another field, not the same one they screwed up in.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You make a lot of fair points, but I'll only address the last one - America and Americans are perhaps the most forgiving and least judgemental when it comes to giving people second and third chances. It's one of the things I like most about America. But when you give a politician who screws up a second chance, let them have that second chance in another field, not the same one they screwed up in.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But if he wants to run and can convince enough of the electorate to vote him in (ala Bill Clinton), then that's fair too. ;)
 
CanadaJohn said:
True - then it's a commentary on the voting public more so than it is on him.
Click to expand...

LOL.. RRRGH! (John, I was gonna make a wisecrack but deleted it cuz someone might have thought it was a serious put-down.) ;)

Again, fair enough from your point of view. Just to be clear again, I've met Mr. Weiner several times when I lived in Queens NY, his old Congressional District. I don't care about the sexting, but I would not vote for him because I feel he is a dishonest individual trying to reach high office. That's my personal opinion of the man, and I don't think most New Yorker's would disagree...but who knows?
 
Last edited:
Risky Thicket said:
Indeed he may. I never said it was illegal. He's just an arrogant dickwit and his lying ass would never get my vote.
Click to expand...



I think that his worst wrong move were the lies to the press and the people......and my goodness did he lie--bigtime and with passion--:) If he had admitted his indiscretions, sought therapy, he probably could have kept his job and some remnant of respect... G-nite all....
 
You know you're officially a scumbag when you get your wife to make excuses for your behavior that directly affect your relationship with her.

I guess after being Hillary's whippin girl....this was easy.
 
His mistake is using "Carlos Danger" as an alias. Everybody knows that Danger is more appropriate as a middle name.
 
Captain Adverse said:
LOL.. RRRGH! (John, I was gonna make a wisecrack but deleted it cuz someone might have thought it was a serious put-down.) ;)

Again, fair enough from your point of view. Just to be clear again, I've met Mr. Weiner several times when I lived in Queens NY, his old Congressional District. I don't care about the sexting, but I would not vote for him because I feel he is a dishonest individual trying to reach high office. That's my personal opinion of the man, and I don't think most New Yorker's would disagree...but who knows?
Click to expand...

Just to be clear - you can wisecrack and/or put me down anytime you feel like it - you have no fear that I'm going to report you - that's not my style - I leave that game for others, unless it's particularly egregious and not at all related to the topic being discussed.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Just to be clear - you can wisecrack and/or put me down anytime you feel like it - you have no fear that I'm going to report you - that's not my style - I leave that game for others, unless it's particularly egregious and not at all related to the topic being discussed.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but it was only an off the wall silly comment formulated due to the lateness of the hour. Besides I respect your positions too much to ever seriously make a negative personal comment. :)
 
Get out of the race, Carlos Danger. Who knows what you will do if you are elected New York's mayor.
Most of America is in a Marmite situation; we hate you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom