• 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!

NY mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner admits more lewd photos

Mizmo said:
For every conservative "indiscretion", there are at least three Liberl "indiscretions" in the political arena. No need to list them all, I ain't got time, but worthy of mentioning is Slick Willie's escapade in the Oval Office, and his subsequent lying while pointing his finger at the American people. This will be a defining moment for New Yorkers. Surely they will not vote this self-serving slimeball into office!
Click to expand...

You are hitting the kool aid a little strong, and yes if you are going to claim a 6-1 ratio you do need some proof.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Wouldn't it have been so much better for him to have given all the details at the original time rather than confess each time a new set of allegations come out?

I watched Huma's speech in the second video - poor woman has chosen to stand by him and things will look so much worse for her if it turns out he's still doing what he did as a congressman and since.
Click to expand...

she was as impressive as her husband was ... icky
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
lol, it also doesn't speak much to competency or character
Click to expand...

The character issue, I believe, has been resolved. Also the wattage issue. I mean, he was disgraced, took the walk of shame, and then he was supposed to be diagnosed as a sex addict (he can't help himself), seek treatment, and be "cured." Phoenix from the ashes and all that.

Instead, he repeats his folly. Boy don't learn. Ain't ate up with bright.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
You have to hand it to Mr Weiner, not only a highly appropriate surname but a wife who looks suitably ashamed (as if it was her sending the pics) in his news conference.

Apologies if this is an old story - the BBC link says the story is "posted 24 July 2013 Last updated at 01:59"

How does he get away with this?
Click to expand...

This idiot is the poster child for what is wrong with American politics. By not backing out, he is screaming he isn't running to serve the people, he's running to satisfy his own ambition, the values and morals of the electorate be damned.
 
I feel sorry for the city and hope some last-minute candidate steps up to the plate. I mean, the mayoral race sounds like an old joke. There once were a madam, a john, and a sex addict whose problem is eponymously explained....
 
Occam's Razor said:
This idiot is the poster child for what is wrong with American politics. By not backing out, he is screaming he isn't running to serve the people, he's running to satisfy his own ambition, the values and morals of the electorate be damned.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement that an official share a moral code with their constituency. It's kind of impossible actually, since nobody has the same moral code as anyone else. Even with the traditional "common" morals from Christianity, I say that it's not a good reason to block his ascent to power. I'm an atheist mind you, I don't want an official who will work Christian morality into law. The only thing that should reasonably bar a candidate should be conflicts of interest to their position; if they're caught taking bribes, using their power to stand above the law, taking kick-backs, etc. They shouldn't be barred because of a non-illegal act between consenting adults that just happens to offend religious people.
 
What Weiner did doesn't just offend "religious" people. Sexting is a form of cheating, and there are plenty of secularists who don't approve of this. Cheating is a character issue.
 
I remember having a serious issue with Weiner when he was Congressman because he lied about it at first when he was exposed (pun) the first time. Three solid weeks of lying to the press about it before coming clean, as I recall, which doesn't necessarily say "honest" guy to me. And then a month of pressure from the higher-ups in his party until he resigned. It was a major fiasco. It was also a huge distraction during the some of the most major debates of the Obamacare debacle.

I guess the Democrat overlords are going to pay him back for hijacking the media and losing his seat. Nice of them.
 
douglas said:
There is no requirement that an official share a moral code with their constituency. It's kind of impossible actually, since nobody has the same moral code as anyone else. Even with the traditional "common" morals from Christianity, I say that it's not a good reason to block his ascent to power. I'm an atheist mind you, I don't want an official who will work Christian morality into law. The only thing that should reasonably bar a candidate should be conflicts of interest to their position; if they're caught taking bribes, using their power to stand above the law, taking kick-backs, etc. They shouldn't be barred because of a non-illegal act between consenting adults that just happens to offend religious people.
Click to expand...

lol, where do you guys get this stuff?
 
nota bene said:
What Weiner did doesn't just offend "religious" people. Sexting is a form of cheating, and there are plenty of secularists who don't approve of this. Cheating is a character issue.
Click to expand...
A guy's marriage problems are private to his marriage. Whether it's our religious morals or our secular morals, this guy's private life shouldn't be judged by our morality. Would anyone here like it if Weiner got to pressure you out of job for what you do at home? I can see it now, the "Everybody loses their job if they cheat on their spouse act of 2013"

I wonder how that would factor into the unemployment rate?
 
douglas said:
A guy's marriage problems are private to his marriage. Whether it's our religious morals or our secular morals, this guy's private life shouldn't be judged by our morality. Would anyone here like it if Weiner got to pressure you out of job for what you do at home? I can see it now, the "Everybody loses their job if they cheat on their spouse act of 2013"

I wonder how that would factor into the unemployment rate?
Click to expand...

But his entire handling of the situation paints him as an incompetent boob.
 
douglas said:
There is no requirement that an official share a moral code with their constituency. It's kind of impossible actually, since nobody has the same moral code as anyone else. Even with the traditional "common" morals from Christianity, I say that it's not a good reason to block his ascent to power. I'm an atheist mind you, I don't want an official who will work Christian morality into law. The only thing that should reasonably bar a candidate should be conflicts of interest to their position; if they're caught taking bribes, using their power to stand above the law, taking kick-backs, etc. They shouldn't be barred because of a non-illegal act between consenting adults that just happens to offend religious people.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but that's for an electorate to decide upon. What they should do is look at the question of trust - the man has made claims about his recovery and through his own actions called that recovery into question. His character has been called into question through his own actions.
 
douglas said:
A guy's marriage problems are private to his marriage. Whether it's our religious morals or our secular morals, this guy's private life shouldn't be judged by our morality. Would anyone here like it if Weiner got to pressure you out of job for what you do at home? I can see it now, the "Everybody loses their job if they cheat on their spouse act of 2013"

I wonder how that would factor into the unemployment rate?
Click to expand...

You can't see the potential lawsuit's the taxpayer's will be on the hook for with this clown being elected? Already under the microscope, this idiot doubles down on what brought him under the negative spotlight to begin with? That's good judgment? LOL. This is another classic case where liberals try to use the sex life is a private matter deal where a public figure stupidly made his sexual activities public. It doesn't hold up under those conditions. What goes on in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom, that way it's personal decisions involved.
 
douglas said:
A guy's marriage problems are private to his marriage. Whether it's our religious morals or our secular morals, this guy's private life shouldn't be judged by our morality. Would anyone here like it if Weiner got to pressure you out of job for what you do at home? I can see it now, the "Everybody loses their job if they cheat on their spouse act of 2013"

I wonder how that would factor into the unemployment rate?
Click to expand...
No, the Weiner made his marriage problems public when he took it into the public domain. He knows that. I know that. You know that. Sincerely, Ramone Mysterioso. (Please roll the "R's". Thanks).
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
lol, where do you guys get this stuff?
Click to expand...

It apparently wasn't easy to spin this one! Look how long it took to come up with "it's a private matter" excuse for his behavior. It will be interesting to see what his voters think about his stubborn lack of common sense, let alone trustworthiness. :wow:

Good morning, Dr. Chuckles. :2wave:
 
It's a sad day when people don't seem to equate the character flaws of infidelity with the potential character issues that could betray the public trust of public office.

People lacking integrity can be bribed. What would Weiner have been willing to do with public funds, public security, etc, if he thought he could avoid this embarassment and damage to his career?

What would Clinton have done to hide Lewinsky if he could have? Perhaps even he did for a while.

Integrity matters, folks.
 
Erod said:
It's a sad day when people don't seem to equate the character flaws of infidelity with the potential character issues that could betray the public trust of public office.

People lacking integrity can be bribed. What would Weiner have been willing to do with public funds, public security, etc, if he thought he could avoid this embarassment and damage to his career?

What would Clinton have done to hide Lewinsky if he could have? Perhaps even he did for a while.

Integrity matters, folks.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. And I don't understand the rationale that character can be compartmentalized.
 
Erod said:
It's a sad day when people don't seem to equate the character flaws of infidelity with the potential character issues that could betray the public trust of public office.

People lacking integrity can be bribed. What would Weiner have been willing to do with public funds, public security, etc, if he thought he could avoid this embarassment and damage to his career?

What would Clinton have done to hide Lewinsky if he could have? Perhaps even he did for a while.

Integrity matters, folks.
Click to expand...

So the story goes, there were an awful lot of threats and extortion done to keep the President's secrets. And dealing with all of these distractions while trying to run the free world probably didn't help things along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom