Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[h3lblad3]

So am I the only one who truly believes that what a man does in his privacy is absolutely none of my business, nor the business of anyone else? Seriously?

If he didn't use government resources, this really isn't anyone's business.  It's between him, his family, and those 6 or so women, yes.  But I really don't see the need for the news to constantly bombard me with stuff that doesn't affect me in the least bit.  No, he shouldn't have lied.  But when he did, the whole story should have been over.

Hell, from what I can tell it never affected his ability to do his job.  Well, you know, until the news latched onto it like a pack of rabid dogs and wouldn't leave the man alone.
I'd still vote for the guy if I believed his policies.  I'm not from New York, though, so meh.

That's kinda the thing though. It became a story when he put it on Twitter by mistake. At which point, it ain't private anymore. And if it was my Congressperson, I'd be a bit concerned if they randomly put a junk shot out on Twitter. Because it's...shall we say, a sign of erratic behavior? I vote for my Rep because I expect them to be my voice of sanity in government.

Yes.  He put it on Twitter.  By mistake.  If he had meant you to see it, it'd be your business.
Which is kinda the whole point from the get go.

Umm, no. Let me make an analogy:

If a politician makes an incredibly offensive racist remark when he mistakenly thinks the microphone is off, do you think everyone should just pretend he didn't say anything? Do you think people honestly WOULD be able to pretend that? Doesn't matter if it was a mistake or not. If it enters the public sphere, it becomes a public matter. People are still free to judge Weiner as leniently or as harshly as their personal attitudes dictate. But to say this is a private matter and should be off the public radar altogether is disingenuous.

No. There's a huge difference.  Racism actually affects his ability to do his job.
For example, taking a response against something because someone of African descent wrote it.

The only thing that effected his job here was that no one would leave him alone about it.

[Nikov]

It seems a question of loyalty. A man who is disloyal to his wife, which in many opinions is the highest loyalty to uphold, puts into doubt his loyalty to lesser obligations. And a man who lies to hide his disloyalties puts his word into doubt.

Simply put, it isn't about what he did privately or intended to do privately. It is about him betraying his wife, and if he would betray her, why should constituents trust him?

[Bauglir]

It's annoying that he lied, and did such a bad job of it. If he'd said, "Oops, my bad. I didn't mean for that to end up on Twitter, I suck with computers sometimes," that'd be fine. Hell, if he'd at least said, "I was hacked, and somebody uploaded a picture of somebody else to make fun of me," I'd have believed him at the time (I mean, with a name like Weiner, as a federal politician, he'd be kind of like a wet dream for someone with a desire for lulz), and I'd at least think better of his intelligence once the whole thing came out. It'd be something at least.

See, to me, the whole junk photo mailing isn't a moral issue that reflects on his ability to do his job, unless there are some very strange things going on in all those committees. But I'm not so cool if he feels so compelled to lie that he has to do it on something that, again, doesn't reflect on his ability to do his job, and do it so badly. It's one thing to be a dick if you're a politician, that's just called being in politics, but I can't actually understand a line of reasoning that makes his attempts at damage control seem like a good idea. Attempting to spin the truth would've been a lot smarter, I think.

[h3lblad3]

It seems like you guys kinda get me wrong here.  I'm not defending his actions at all. Lying is wrong.  I'm not moral-less.
I agree, he went about it stupidly.  But people do get embarrassed and it's entirely understandable why he'd lie.

Eh, it seems more like the media is out for blood more than anything.
As if they won't leave him alone until they get his job.

[Vector]

Y'all do know that the junk pictures were unsolicited, right?  Oh, and his wife's pregnant.  I'm going to have to say that "respect for women and their ability to consent" is not very high up on his list of goals.

At least he has Alec Baldwin on his back

RRRRAAAAAAGE

[Nikov]

But he's a modern human being. You need to be more progressive.

[/trollfaice]

I, for one, mourn the loss of traditional Roman virtues of fidelity and honor.

[nenjin]

But not the vomitoriums, political domination, multiple deities and delicious lead cocktails?

[Leafsnail]

I find the idea that Romans had fidelity as a virtue hilarious.  I mean, maybe men were less likely to cheat with other women, but...

[Vector]

Haha, well... the thing is, reputed virtue is often very different from what actually occurs.

So, I don't know if I can mourn a loss.  But I can certainly mourn a nonexistence, because this is pretty reprehensible.

[Aqizzar]

I find the idea that Romans had fidelity as a virtue hilarious.  I mean, maybe men were less likely to cheat with other women, but...

Certainly doesn't make any illegitimate children though.

[Ghills]

I find the idea that Romans had fidelity as a virtue hilarious.  I mean, maybe men were less likely to cheat with other women, but...

YES.  Romans talked about fidelity, but it was usually more in terms of keeping-one's-oaths-to-pater-familias, not avoid-sleeping-around.  Frankly, I do not know why people think the Romans were great people. They were terrible people, who were very good at building things, setting things on fire, and killing people they didn't like.  Just like every other empire we have records of.

Weiner disgusts me. He's proven himself to be a terrible human being who has no sympathy or empathy for other people. I think that basically disqualifies him from being a decent leader. He definitely isn't the kind of man I want in charge of my country.

I've been noticing an interesting distinction in this thread, and I want to try and put my finger on it. Some people are saying that this doesn't make a difference to Weiner's ability to do his job. Other people disagree. I think the difference lies in the definition of what his job is. If his job is to win funds for his district, to make back-room deals, and keep on top of procedural and legal issues then I agree that this doesn't necessarily directly relate to his ability to do all that.

But if a Congressperson's job is to lead and represent America, than this kind of crazy incompetence does effect Weiner's ability to do his job. I don't want to be represented by a creep who sent unwanted porn to people and cheated on his wife (if you are sending porn to people you are not married to, you are cheating on your spouse). He demonstrated seriously bad judgement, both with the photos and with how he tried to handle it.

Seriously, do we want leaders who make the right-wing nutjobs (of whatever religion - I'm looking at you, Taliban) look like they might have a point? Because that's what Weiner is.

[Nikov]

Traditional Roman virtues. Not Imperial Roman debauchery. The difference between Roman life in 400 BC and 400 AD is so striking I'm surprised dead legionaries didn't rise from their graves to burn down the city. Instead Visigoths did, ha-ha.

[Ghills]

Regardless of the time period, fidelity was still not an everyday part of Roman life. Talking about fidelity I'll grant you.

[Darkmere]

Just a small, curious aside. Everyone has very strong opinions on political figures, and I completely understand and support that. People should have the right to be vocal about their opinions of their leadership.

But...

The voting records for any given legislator are public record. Show of hands, has anyone gone through this guy's record to see how he's voted on the issues he campaigned for election on? How about anyone from your individual state? Your district?

My point is, he could very well have been doing his job (trying to enact laws based on his platform) before, during, and after this. Or he may have been a boldfaced liar and not done a damn thing he said he would since he got elected.

The media's throwing this out for ratings, it's a scandal! But if he got elected on a moderate platform and has been voting moderate (or whatever), then yes, he is doing his job. If he lied his ass off, got elected, and then voted for corporate tax breaks, then he was already a liar and no one would have known or cared, unless they looked it up.

[Bauglir]

Oh, right, the unsolicited part. I'd forgotten about that. And hadn't done enough research to note the wife thing, so allow my headdesking to commence.

That said, I would still have to be clear about the extent of my disapproval. Which would be that he's a douche and I dislike him, but while I would wish losing his job on him, I wouldn't call for it to happen. As much as this indicates that he's not much of a good person, if we only allowed good people in government, nobody who's gotten elected above a local level would be in government. And also, I'm unsure of the extent to which "is a good person" correlates with "being in office will produce good results". Philosophically, it's that latter one that matters more since the former objection is just practicality talking, but then, I don't want to take this into yet another philosophical derail (as I'm apparently apt to do), so I should probably just shut up now.