• 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!

Weiner for mayor of your city?

Weiner for mayor of your city?


  • Total voters
    58
Indeed we are.
No, you are not. Continuing to claim his response to his sexual actions are public still does not change the fact his actions are in response to his private sexual life. This is incredibly simple, yet you seem to be having more difficulty with it than anyone should.

Things can be related to a sex scandal while not concerning his sexual preference. Example: someone kills their gay lover for threatening to go public. Clearly the issues surrounding such would involve the sex scandal, but still raise concerns beyond sexual preference.
:lamo

That would not be a sex scandal, that would be a murder scandal. I think your example pretty clearly proves your inability to understand this situation. Oh, and by the way, if their lover did come out and expose a politician for being gay, is it your position that would affect his ability to do his job? I'd hope not, so you can understand why your example fails in multiple ways.
OMGosh! Your looking for a lie Carlos told. Why didn't you say that?
No, what I'm saying is that I have no idea whether or not Weiner would have my vote. I'm saying his sex life would not impact my vote at all.

When Carlos Danger exposed his penis to the public, he also exposed his wife and little boy.
His wife is a political figure herself. And his boy has not been exposed any more than any other child of a politician.

That may not be troublesome for someone like you, but for a lot of public, his lewd actions and lies are troublesome.
Perhaps you're not aware of this, but the little boy would not exist if he did not have sex with his wife. Getting defensive about the idea he's a sexual creature seems a little hypocritical at this point, don't you think?
again, nothing to do with his "preferences"
It's completely about his preferences. But it should not be. It should be based upon whether or not he would be a good mayor. That's how I would decide whether or not to vote for him.

If it wasn't a problem, why is he in therapy for it?
How is that relevant to how well he'll do the job as mayor? That's what I mean when I say it's not a problem.

Yes, T-R-U-S-T
Unless you are his wife, has he given you a reason not to trust him? Is that reason based upon the job he'll do, and not based upon something to do with his sex life?

Maybe he has. And if he has, THAT is why you shouldn't vote for him (assuming the other person hasn't given you a reason to not trust). But use reasons related to his job, not his private life.

I didn't make it, one of Carlo's "girlfriends" did.
But you're the one trying to pass it off in this conversation.
 
Last edited:
No, you are not. Continuing to claim his response to his sexual actions are public still does not change the fact his actions are in response to his private sexual life. This is incredibly simple, yet you seem to be having more difficulty with it than anyone should.

Uh, I just outlined how the acts were 1) not private (and you just asserted the very same thing), and 2) how his response to them raised legitimate concerns about his ability in office

That would not be a sex scandal

Please read with precision: I wrote <<<Things can be related to a sex scandal while not concerning his sexual preference>>>, in reply to you writing <<<unrelated to what happened with this sex "scandal">>>.

Note that I in no way claim murder would be a "sex scandal", but that his response in handling the "sex scandel"(murder) would speak to his fitness in office, while not focusing on his "sexual preference".


Oh, and by the way, if their lover did come out and expose a politician for being gay, is it your position that would affect his ability to do his job? I'd hope not, so you can understand why your example fails in multiple ways.

Yes, though I said nothing of the sort, that is exactly what i meant.

PS does delving into pointless character attacks really strike you as the best way to help your argument here?

I think your example pretty clearly proves your inability to understand this situation.

I am not sure you intentionally trying to distort what I wrote, and the context that I wrote it in, amounts to anything of the sort. In fact, if it does anything, it highlights the fact that you continue to make claims, have them rebutted, then simply ignore the unfavorable responses while frantically trying to redefine your position
 
Unless you are his wife, has he given you a reason not to trust him? Is that reason based upon the job he'll do, and not based upon something to do with his sex life?

Yes, the buffoonish, incompetent manner in which he has handled the situation ...
 
No, you are not. Continuing to claim his response to his sexual actions are public still does not change the fact his actions are in response to his private sexual life. This is incredibly simple, yet you seem to be having more difficulty with it than anyone should.

:lamo

That would not be a sex scandal, that would be a murder scandal. I think your example pretty clearly proves your inability to understand this situation. Oh, and by the way, if their lover did come out and expose a politician for being gay, is it your position that would affect his ability to do his job? I'd hope not, so you can understand why your example fails in multiple ways.
No, what I'm saying is that I have no idea whether or not Weiner would have my vote. I'm saying his sex life would not impact my vote at all.

His wife is a political figure herself. And his boy has not been exposed any more than any other child of a politician.

Perhaps you're not aware of this, but the little boy would not exist if he did not have sex with his wife. Getting defensive about the idea he's a sexual creature seems a little hypocritical at this point, don't you think?
It's completely about his preferences. But it should not be. It should be based upon whether or not he would be a good mayor. That's how I would decide whether or not to vote for him.

How is that relevant to how well he'll do the job as mayor? That's what I mean when I say it's not a problem.

Unless you are his wife, has he given you a reason not to trust him? Is that reason based upon the job he'll do, and not based upon something to do with his sex life?

Maybe he has. And if he has, THAT is why you shouldn't vote for him (assuming the other person hasn't given you a reason to not trust). But use reasons related to his job, not his private life.

But you're the one trying to pass it off in this conversation.

To each his own. You can talk until you're blue, but I would never vote for Carlos for all the obvious reasons.
 
If there were a wiener/holder ticket I would have to hold off my decision until I had seen how they hold up among the "POLLS".(read as poles)
 
Yes, the buffoonish, incompetent manner in which he has handled the situation ...
Again, you seem incapable of understanding this simplest of concepts...

What situation? The situation surrounding his private sex life?

As long as the answer to that question is yes, you will never be right about this.
To each his own. You can talk until you're blue, but I would never vote for Carlos for all the obvious reasons.
I honestly could not care less how you would vote. You seemed to be the one with the issues of how I would vote.
 
Again, you seem incapable of understanding this simplest of concepts...

What situation? The situation surrounding his private sex life?

As long as the answer to that question is yes, you will never be right about this.
I honestly could not care less how you would vote. You seemed to be the one with the issues of how I would vote.

Do you really vote?
 
Again, you seem incapable of understanding this simplest of concepts...

Not really, being that I am continually outlining why you are wrong and you're only response to such is to go "nu-uh"

What situation? The situation surrounding his private sex life?

1) as outlined here and previously admitted to by yourself: posting **** pics in a public forum and sending them to random women is not private

2) Yes, situations surrounding his personal sexual habits, but that speak to his ability to govern. Just like killing one's gay lover would be "a situation surrounding his private sex life" but "his response to it would speak to his ability to govern"

Yes, we know: "nu-uh".


"As long as the answer to that question is yes, you will never be right about this."

I already addressed this exact point.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/167639-weiner-mayor-your-city-8.html#post1062110293

our discussion of such stopped here when you made a rather blatant attempt to shift goal posts, distort what I actually wrote, and raise various straw man arguments

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/167639-weiner-mayor-your-city-11.html#post1062116472

Now, in your usual fashion, you are simply ignoring that such points have been addressed, declaring yourself some sort of victor, and attempting to pointlessly rehash arguments we already went over in detail
 
It's completely about his preferences. But it should not be. It should be based upon whether or not he would be a good mayor. That's how I would decide whether or not to vote for him.

No, it's not about his preferences. It's about his integrity. You don't remember all the lies he told when it was uncovered he was doing this as a Congressman? It's innapropriate behavior he lied about when cought, finally resigned over it, then doubled down on it again. :shrug:

How is that relevant to how well he'll do the job as mayor? That's what I mean when I say it's not a problem.

Because, he's obviously got problems, problems I wouldn't want see interfere with the job. The most powerful mayorship in the country.

Unless you are his wife, has he given you a reason not to trust him? Is that reason based upon the job he'll do, and not based upon something to do with his sex life?

Yes, he has. He's exhibited a propensity for engaging in compromising behavior. Anyone in a postion of trust knows what the impact of that is. If you don't understand it, well, then you don't understand it.

Maybe he has. And if he has, THAT is why you shouldn't vote for him (assuming the other person hasn't given you a reason to not trust). But use reasons related to his job, not his private life.

Well, I wouldn't vote for him because I don't like his positions. Even the non-sexually oriented ones.

But you're the one trying to pass it off in this conversation.

Relaying the facts. :shrug:
 
Would you want Anthony Weiner as mayor of your city? Do you think he would do a good job as mayor? If so, what kinds of things do you think he would do to better your city?

No I don't think I'd want a wiener as the mayor of my city.
 
The current Drudge headline is "Weiner vows to stick it out."
 
I don't know anything about his policies or positions, but his infidelity would not keep me from voting for him, IF I felt he could be more honest and trustworthy to his job than his wife. I simply don't know enough about him or his history to have the answer to that.

This. It's an unfortunate, yet common aspect of powerful people to be much better leaders than they are spouses. We can just say we'll only elect truly pious leaders, but then we'd probably never elect anyone. Half of us can't even make that claim, statistically. And honestly, I don't understand why I should care who a politician sleeps with. Sure, it's kind of funny when an anti-gay politician gets caught soliciting for gay sex, but it's hardly relevant to his fitness for the job.

I don't know anything about Weiner's policy positions or actions either, so I can't say if I'd vote for him. But given the circus around his personal life, I have doubts about his ability to be effective in that environment.
 
I've heard several people mention "random" women. He just sends wang pictures through Facebook to random women? I thought he had met or knew these women somehow first and then sent them pictures.
 
I've heard several people mention "random" women. He just sends wang pictures through Facebook to random women? I thought he had met or knew these women somehow first and then sent them pictures.

Weinergate involved some girl that was simply following him on twitter.
 
Weinergate involved some girl that was simply following him on twitter.

Well, that doesn't mean they didn't speak beforehand. Did she say, yes Mr. Wiener, I want to see a picture of your wiener? Or are these women taken by surprise by the wiener pictures?
 
Well, that doesn't mean they didn't speak beforehand. Did she say, yes Mr. Wiener, I want to see a picture of your wiener? Or are these women taken by surprise by the wiener pictures?

From what I remember of her remarks, she claimed it was pretty random
 
From what I remember of her remarks, she claimed it was pretty random

That's so weird. I just don't understand why he would want to do that and risk EVERYTHING to show strangers his wiener. Must be some fetish or something.
 
The man has some serious issues and should seek professional help, not public office. Other than that I also don't like proven liars.
 
This. It's an unfortunate, yet common aspect of powerful people to be much better leaders than they are spouses. We can just say we'll only elect truly pious leaders, but then we'd probably never elect anyone. Half of us can't even make that claim, statistically. And honestly, I don't understand why I should care who a politician sleeps with. Sure, it's kind of funny when an anti-gay politician gets caught soliciting for gay sex, but it's hardly relevant to his fitness for the job.

I don't know anything about Weiner's policy positions or actions either, so I can't say if I'd vote for him. But given the circus around his personal life, I have doubts about his ability to be effective in that environment.

and it seems that powerful Democrats have declared a war on women. :shock:
 
and it seems that powerful Democrats have declared a war on women. :shock:

I thought Perry, McDonnell, Walker, and Jodie Laubenberg, who said rape kits clean a woman out after being brutally raped, were all Republicans.
Akin said women who are raped (leally that is) are able to close down their bodies and prevent pregnancy. Isn't he a Republican?
Mourdock said if a woman is brutally raped and becomes pregnant then it is God's will. He's Republican.
 
I thought Perry, McDonnell, Walker, and Jodie Laubenberg, who said rape kits clean a woman out after being brutally raped, were all Republicans.
Akin said women who are raped (leally that is) are able to close down their bodies and prevent pregnancy. Isn't he a Republican?
Mourdock said if a woman is brutally raped and becomes pregnant then it is God's will. He's Republican.

Every political party is entitled to its quota of freaks.
 
The current Drudge headline is "Weiner vows to stick it out."

the worse thing for a politician is to become the butt (no pun intended) of jokes ... you're O.K. if people hate or like you, but when you're a joke, that's it ... it's one of the things that hurt McCain/Palin ...
 
The man has some serious issues and should seek professional help, not public office. Other than that I also don't like proven liars.

agreed ... the guy's a dick and should pull out ...
 
I thought Perry, McDonnell, Walker, and Jodie Laubenberg, who said rape kits clean a woman out after being brutally raped, were all Republicans.
Akin said women who are raped (leally that is) are able to close down their bodies and prevent pregnancy. Isn't he a Republican?
Mourdock said if a woman is brutally raped and becomes pregnant then it is God's will. He's Republican.

Not that there is any excuse for anyone saying anything that stupid, much of what is claimed to have been said is highly exaggerated. As opposed to what was done by Democrats like Weiner, Clinton, and that guy in San Diego, among others.
 
I've heard several people mention "random" women. He just sends wang pictures through Facebook to random women? I thought he had met or knew these women somehow first and then sent them pictures.

His 22-year old former sexting partner trolled for rich guys on a site called "sugardaddies" or something similar, and I think that's where she met him.
 
Back
Top Bottom