WeinerGate.

HiTempguy wrote:

JeffHarbert wrote: This. Being a saint is not a requisite of holding office. This whole attitude that elected officials should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us is absurd.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but WHAT? So, thousands of people "trust" one person (via their vote) to be an accountable, non-corrupt individual who represents their ideas, values, and lets say "beliefs" in government,

We elect people with the hope that they will represent us when it comes time for them to vote or otherwise act in the professional capacity we have elected them for. In the same way that we trust a transmission shop to rebuild our transmission.

If my transmission rebuilder cheats on his wife, I'm not likely to introduce him to my female friends, and I may or may not want to go back to him for transmission work depending on the local market and how creeped out I am. But fundamentally, if he kept to his reasonable quote and did a quality rebuild, I'm disinclined to try to get him barred from the industry because of it.

I recognize the distinction between being my representative and being my repair guy, but the job description of rep is not to embody your spirit in government, it's to work for the things you voted to work for. You could certainly have a candidate who claimed and offered to represent your very core in every aspect, and that would be his promise to keep or break, and on breaking it you'd have grounds to be appropriately apoplectic, but it's not the job description.

Dem, Rep, or Other, I'm pretty sure that if we chucked out everybody that had done something on this level of bad outside of their job, we wouldn't have enough people left to fill the positions. The idea of electing only angels is great, but I find it completely unrealistic. This terrible game is called 'politics', and the only way that people get to play it at a professional level is by playing it fairly well, and I'm quite convinced that spin, favors, closed-door deals, selective memories, and lies of various proportions are prerequisites long before you get to this level.

And yes, I think there are both decent people and slimeballs who do all of the above. I believe that anybody who doesn't do any of these things would be completely ineffectual.

EDIT: I don't think texting pictures of your anatomy to anybody is a prerequisite to efficacy, but the point regarding the distinction between behavioral perfection and job-appropriateness stands.

aircooled wrote: Yes, but they are also "representatives".

Where is the "people of walmart" pictures? Sorry, but to say that someone should be held to the lowest common denominator... that is what is wrong with society worldwide as a WHOLE in developed nations.

I'd rather have a benevolent dictator then "people of walmart" running the show. The dictator at least loves you and has the will/desire to help you in an appropriate matter, and also kick your ass when you are being retarded.

aircooled wrote: Never been there, but who are we (or the Democratic party, or news organizations) to say it is inappropriate, it's up to them.

i'll say it's inappropriate, but that's not even the real issue, as with most of these things. rather the man lied about it (vehemently, arrogantly) for days, blamed it on someone else (Breitbart) to the point of saying he hacked his account which may be a crime. his horrible lack of judgement put himself into situations where he could be blackmailed for political reasons, and there's still ANYBODY that thinks he can be trusted with government secrets or legislative power?

WilberM3 wrote: i'll say it's inappropriate, but that's not even the real issue, as with most of these things. rather the man lied about it (vehemently, arrogantly) for days, blamed it on someone else (Breitbart) to the point of saying he hacked his account which may be a crime. his horrible lack of judgement put himself into situations where he could be blackmailed for political reasons, and there's still ANYBODY that thinks he can be trusted with government secrets or legislative power?

Hacking is a crime; it's double-own territory when it involves the account(s) of a sitting member of Congress. Still, Weiner never reported it as a crime. He decided to retain legal counsel instead.

That was HUGE CLUE #1 that he's a lying pos and not a victim.

ransom wrote: If my transmission rebuilder cheats on his wife, I'm not likely to introduce him to my female friends, and I may or may not want to go back to him for transmission work depending on the local market and how creeped out I am. But fundamentally, if he kept to his reasonable quote and did a quality rebuild, I'm disinclined to try to get him barred from the industry because of it.

I actually disagree on a very, VERY basic level.

For instance; we have a "tuning" god located in Calgary. He is also the "tin-foil" hat type (ask him for his opinions on Bosnia for instance). I can NOT justify letting him touch my cars due to his attitude/values/beliefs.

You make it sound as if it is clearcut seperation, while it clearly isn't. If somebody is willing to cheat on their wife (your example), what is to stop them from cheating on your transmission build? Maybe YOU think he did a good job, but maybe you just don't know/never find out he didn't. I personally (again, this is a core belief of mine) can NOT support people like this. The final "straw" I see people grasping at is what he did wasn't "illegal".

Also, this isn't really about what his actual actions were, it's the coverup after the fact. It's proof enough he did something wrong that he wanted nobody to know about it.

HiTempguy wrote: You make it sound as if it is clearcut seperation, while it clearly isn't. If somebody is willing to cheat on their wife (your example), what is to stop them from cheating on your transmission build? Maybe YOU think he did a good job, but maybe you just don't know/never find out he didn't. I personally (again, this is a core belief of mine) can NOT support people like this.

You'll note that I said I may not go back to have him work on my stuff, dependent on how creeped out I was, but wouldn't take on chucking him out of the industry.

More to your point, if I know of a substantial number of people whose transmissions worked beautifully for an appropriate period of time, and mine did as well, I think I'd be convinced that he wasn't cheating on the rebuilds. I have proof at that point that he's doing the job I paid him for quite well. Observed delivery of job performance is, after all, what I'm talking about in both cases. There's no need to take on faith that someone is doing their job well when you have proof that they do their job well.

The final "straw" I see people grasping at is what he did wasn't "illegal". Also, this isn't really about what his actual actions were, it's the coverup after the fact. It's proof enough he did something wrong that he wanted nobody to know about it.

There I agree. I find the accusations that somebody else did this to him to be much worse than the original actions. At that point, we are talking about wasted resources, repercussions for bystanders (ignoring my presently-irrelevant opinion of Breitbart), etc.

I don't care that much that he didn't want people knowing about the pictures. It was dumb to send them, but not illegal. If it were illegal, it would then be wrong to try to avoid disclosure of that act.

But the particular manner in which he tried to cover it up was, as I understand it, wrong. That was the point where he got into conflict with what he's paid to do. Again, based on how I understand it.

HiTempguy wrote: ...Sorry, but to say that someone should be held to the lowest common denominator...

Lowest? Have you been to Queens?

(the above is for dramatic effect, I have never been to Queens)

But seriously, "sexting" is hardly what you would call the lowest these days, either is lying about your embarrassing sexual conduct (which I think I can reasonably say is very, very common and even entirely expected).

If he did something illegal or violated his "sacred congressional oath" or something, then prosecute. If not, leave it to his district.

aircooled wrote: If he did something illegal or violated his "sacred congressional oath" or something, then prosecute. If not, leave it to his district.

House minority-leader Pelosi forwarded Weiner's case to the House Ethics Committee. They have a provision for egregious behaviours that bring the institution into disrepute. At first, this may seem like a good idea, but the process takes months for resolution and the issue would be in the press constantly.

Keep in mind that Congress is in recess this week and the party's heavyweights haven't had to face the press. The decision has likely already been made but we won't know until next week. I doubt that Weiner or his supporters will like the outcome.

I've stayed out of this for six pages other than saying yes to the op, here's my take on it.

Naughty pictures don't bother me. Treating his wife like crap does. You can determine a lot about a man's character by watching how he treats his family. He obviously doesn't appreciate his very much. Assuming his marriage vows were similar to mine, his word isn't worth much either.

Sending pictures via twitter doesn't bother me. He slipped up and sent them to the wrong person or whatever. So what. That makes him a little screwed up, but no worse than most of us. Maybe more twisted, but no worse.

How he handled it. That was the major mistake. I listened to several of his interviews. He was a self righteous ass. For ten days we heard how someone was out to get him, how he was hacked, how the picture wasn't him. That's inexcusable. If he had manned up and taken the heat this would already be old news and he could quietly go back to doing his job. Now it won't end until he does.

This process has made him virtually irrelevant in the political realm. Anything he puts his name on will drag his naughty photos back into the limelight. Anything he wanted for his district, he probably has no chance of getting because no one will partner with him. Any legislation he wanted, no one will endorse. He is a pariah among the Rs and the Ds. The best thing he can do for his constituents is pack his crap and go home.

Shouda quit while he was ahead. Resignation > Jail. If I was this chick's father, I'd be paying little weinerstein a visit.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/06/10/2011-06-10_rep_anthony_weiner_tweeted_17yearold_girl_but_congressman_swears_it_wasnt_dirty_.html

We elect people with the hope that they will represent us when it comes time for them to vote or otherwise act in the professional capacity we have elected them for. In the same way that we trust a transmission shop to rebuild our transmission. If my transmission rebuilder cheats on his wife, I'm not likely to introduce him to my female friends, and I may or may not want to go back to him for transmission work depending on the local market and how creeped out I am. But fundamentally, if he kept to his reasonable quote and did a quality rebuild, I'm disinclined to try to get him barred from the industry because of it. I recognize the distinction between being my representative and being my repair guy, but the job description of rep is not to embody your spirit in government, it's to work for the things you voted to work for.

I don't think you're making enough of a distinction, i'm afraid. The transmission rebuilder is not granted the authority to tell you when to change gears while operating said transmission.

These elected officials are granted civil authority which, in my view, drastically escalates expectations. People who make lifestyle choices like this usually have other problems endemic in their lives. Its not a question of morality at that point, its a question of possessing sound judgement while wielding influence of law over others. These extracirricular activities are just a symptom of how they will act in other areas of their life.

While in Weiner's case, alot of people are focusing on what he did on Facebook with other women, i think they're dropping the ball because he's been a notorius flirt and womanizer all his career, the reports say.

Instead, I see it this way: do you want someone wielding civil authorative powers who isn't current enough, or know enough about technology on how to use Facebook correctly?

I'm more worried about how ignorant of technology and lifestyle these elected officials seem to be, and what it represents.

Ya'll make really good points all around, but I sweat I can't even follow the conversation cause of my inner Beavis chuckling about "Wiener."

Wiener. heh heh. Dude's a wiener.

he said weiner

Atleast someone has finally come to his defense,

Eh, how many people here have done things like this that would upset their spouses? I'm sure most people have. Hell, it's scientific fact that you can't trust your woman with a webcam...

poopshovel wrote: Shouda quit while he was ahead. Resignation > Jail. If I was this chick's father, I'd be paying little weinerstein a visit. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/06/10/2011-06-10_rep_anthony_weiner_tweeted_17yearold_girl_but_congressman_swears_it_wasnt_dirty_.html

HA!

Precisely what i said a few pages ago. And from someone who sponsored an Internet predator bill.

What a POS.

video of Weiner texts (NSFW language)

rotard wrote: Eh, how many people here have done things like this that would upset their spouses? I'm sure most people have. Hell, it's scientific fact that you can't trust your woman with a webcam...

What world do you live in? You can't trust a significant other to be a mature adult with a webcam when they are in a relationship with you?

Damn son, sounds like you have 99 problems (and a bitch is one).

HiTempguy wrote:

rotard wrote: Eh, how many people here have done things like this that would upset their spouses? I'm sure most people have. Hell, it's scientific fact that you can't trust your woman with a webcam...

What world do you live in? You can't trust a significant other to be a mature adult with a webcam when they are in a relationship with you? Damn son, sounds like you have 99 problems (and a bitch is one).

Exactly how long have you been on the internet, kid? TITS OR GTFO I've never caught my s/o on a webcam showing the goodies, but there are plenty of them out there. I was trying to be kind of funny with that last comment, while including a bit of truth. I'm sorry that you missed it.

rotard wrote: I'm sorry that you missed it.

Emoticons... you know, the icons that show emotion? They help add meaning to text rather than being taken for written word

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57116.html

It looks like Wiener is pulling out.

Guesses on tomorrow's NY Post Headline?

Wiener Withdraws

It was a matter of time. This morning watching the news a story lead off with "Porn star opens up on Wiener". I still have a Rice Crispie in my nose.

WilberM3 wrote: i'll say it's inappropriate, but that's not even the real issue, as with most of these things. rather the man lied about it (vehemently, arrogantly) for days, blamed it on someone else (Breitbart) to the point of saying he hacked his account which may be a crime. his horrible lack of judgement put himself into situations where he could be blackmailed for political reasons, and there's still ANYBODY that thinks he can be trusted with government secrets or legislative power?

I got to thinking about something- and I think this post may answer the question I had about it.

Think about Jennifer Flowers, or the David Vitter prostitution thing. They both got away with it. And in both cases, they got in front of it, said "yeah, I did that" and apologized. Then they moved on. It seems like there's a lesson in that. Clinton, of course, went on to have other issues. But he was just kinda screwing around. Vitter, it seems, did something illegal. Even though I think it's silly for prostitution to be illegal, it is. So that's not the line. It's how they handle it once caught.

Though, in Weiner's case, the pictures may have been too damning even if he had handled it better. Not sure. Wish we could go back in time and see him play it differently. Hard to say.