General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm supposed to care that Anthony Weiner sexts with people? Why?
What does that have to do with his ability to be mayor? I honestly don't get what the concern is. How is it any of my or anyone's business? Brush it off and talk about things that matter.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)how can his constituents?
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)A politician needs the trust of at least those of his constituents who of his party to be effective. Weiner is now and will be more of a punchline than an effective leader. I can't vote for him or his opponent, so take my opinion for what it's worth, absolutely nothing.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)burnodo
(2,017 posts)But I will say that some indiscretions seem more important to some people while other indiscretions seem to go ignored.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)to truly not give a fuck. Perhaps she's just a natural stoic.
Maybe he's showing his penis all over the internet with her permission; they wouldn't be the first couple I've encountered where fulfillment of one partner or both partner's voyeurism was not only accepted but perhaps even embraced.
whttevrr
(2,347 posts)"I didn't know how it would work out, but I did know I wanted to give it a try. Anthony's made some horrible mistakes, both before he resigned from Congress and after. But I do very strongly believe that that is between us and our marriage."
"We discussed all of this before Anthony decided to run for mayor, so really what I want to say is I love him, I have forgiven him, I believe in him, and as we have said from the beginning, we are moving forward. Thank you very much."
~Huma Abedin
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)to the latest sexting? I notice she did not say she trusted him.
I think his actions show an incredible lack of judgement. He is running for a position in which I have no say. I would likely not vote for him in a primary, but of course I do not know anything of his Democratic opponents either.
WCLinolVir
(951 posts)
leftstreet
(40,680 posts)
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)I'm so glad no one I know in my family does naughty things like that.
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)So I can relate.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Sexting is between his wife and him, but offering his sexters jobs is reasonably a matter of public concern, in my opinion.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)Hell. I know he isn't. Grover Cleveland did it, then had to give a speech explaining that he wasn't bribing her rather he was paying her not to disclose the existence of his lovechild.
Why can't we just accept that it's not our business? It works for the French.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)What is this?
The twenty first century answer to the casting couch?
Chan790
(20,176 posts)That's the fallacy known as "confusion of the inverse". You've assumed that the probability (P) is the same for B because A as it is the known probability of A because B.
Just because one gives one's mistresses jobs to keep them quiet about peccadilloes doesn't mean one can infer the necessity of having a peccadillo with the boss to get a job. In fact, you can't even assume that sleeping with the boss improves your chances of getting the job, even based on his past history. (As the empiricist philosopher David Hume deduced logically.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusion_of_the_inverse
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)Which as you know is a politics website which is private, not part of the govt.
http://thedirty.com/2013/07/exclusive-anthony-weiner-hasnt-changed-poor-huma-abedin-new-image-of-his-penis/
"promised Anonymous many things like a job at Politico"
Not entirely sure I believe that, but none the less "The Politico" has nothing to do with New York State govt.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)It's ultimately up to the voters of NYC, but he wouldn't get my vote.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)policy based on those contributions is more of a breech of trust than sexting someone.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)So let's try to stop the trend and tell Weiner to go home.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)choice. I just don't really care if he sexted someone. I would vote for someone who sexted if they would vote to change campaign funding, end Citizens United, regulate the banks, support a living wage, and fully fund education. I have no idea if Weiner is for any of those things. Like I said I don't live in NY and don't know that much about Weiner.
cali
(114,904 posts)this is a guy with zero impulse control and judgment.
Not such great qualities in a chief executive.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)How dare you not be outraged about sex chats on the Internet!! Get with the program!! Family values! and stuff!! 
cali
(114,904 posts)that Weiner, in addition to being a race baiting slimeball and disgustingly bigoted against Palestinians, has zero impulse control and judgment.
he's pathetic.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)then I will agree that he's pathetic and also corrupt. Otherwise I give the exact same zero fucks about sex chats that I gave in 2011.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Amazing how the same argument gets recycled by everyone.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Murder is the biggest human rights violation there is. If a person has a grain of sense, they WILL get outraged about it, media or no media- because tolerance means they might be the next chalk outline. Getting outraged about Weiner because...you might be the next one attacked by a wild consensual sex chat?? Slightly different.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)I guess people with no sex lives can't stand that other people do.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Also, any organism with opposable thumbs has sex chats on demand available.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)There some sort of Puritan message in that jibberish?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Make shit up much?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"people with no sex lives can't stand that other people do...."
I've little doubt that yours may be the only justification a handful of individuals allow themselves... denying themselves any other rational explanations to better validate their own ethical positions.
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)Should city jobs be handed out on the basis of how hard one can get the mayor?
Changes the whole concept of meritocracy, doesn't it?
But, if that doesn't bother you, there are plenty of other reasons to hate the guy - his massive ego, his self-centeredness, his launching a career with race-baiting flyers attacking black politicians, his nastiness toward Helen Thomas, his bizrre claim that the west bank isn't occupied, his lack of any legislative accomplishments, etc.
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)Qualified friends
Unqualified friends
Qualified enemies
Unqualified enemies
Never a reason to exhaust the first category.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)To most people the problem is the constant public lies about it, the cynical duping of supporters and the insane recklessness in running for an important office without divulging it, and then saying he knew it would get out.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)In getting caught at this a second time, he shows he can't play it either because he is too stupid or because he has a compulsion that he has no control over.
I'm not up in arms about it, but I won't vote for a guy who can't play the game he is asking me to help him win.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)...you'd think the members of this site are the ones married to him. Sheesh.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)who spends his nights masturbating furiously in the spare room while sexting pictures of his erect penis, while his pregnant wife is sleeping peacefully? If the voters of New York City are OK with this, they have the right to elect him as mayor.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)"masturbating" combined with "furious" juxtaposed against "peaceful".
Difficult not to peer into your mind a bit.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)other than playing 12 year old boy.
valerief
(53,235 posts)
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Anyone that stupid can't be trusted to hold office, IMO.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Bill Clinton was extremely stupid sexually, but was still a very good President.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Reckless is reckless. He can't be trusted with sensitive information. That tweeting his penis and lying about it was moronic. I can't even begin to fathom how a politician can be that stupid. He almost makes the Republicans looks cogent.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I say partly because Al Gore does deserve some of the blame. But that doesn't change the fact most of America had tired of Clinton's antics and wanted to turn the page on the scandals, which gave Bush, who ran as a moralist, an opening that should have never existed in the first place. 2000 wasn't about how Clinton/Gore saved the U.S. from economic collapse and instead solely about cleaning up the White House and it played to a good number of Americans who, while they might've approved of the job Clinton was doing as president, didn't approve of him as a human being.
http://www.people-press.org/1999/04/17/clinton-fatigue-undermines-gore-poll-standing/
But beyond just the 2000 election, his actions hurt his second term. Much of it was dominated by fighting back the Republican witch hunts and it meant he accomplished little - especially on the domestic front. Let's be honest, had Dole won in '96, would anything have changed between 1997 and 2001? I doubt it. Okay, so, he got CHIPs through, with the help of Ted Kennedy - but what else?
He was so distracted by the Paula Jones and Lewinsky scandals that his second term was essentially useless.
Worse, Clinton's stupidity put his presidency at risk. Had the revelations come out in 1996, when his affair with Monica started, it probably would have sunk his reelection chances. He played with fire and lucked out - but that doesn't make it right because sometimes when you play with fire, you'll burn down the whole house. The only thing that kept Clinton's sexual stupidity from entirely wrecking his presidency was timing. A few years earlier, and the whole Lewinsky affair would've torpedoed his reelection and worse, potentially driven a more conservative Republican to the White House, as many heavy hitters backed out of running because Clinton's numbers looked too imposing. Had there been a sexual scandal in his first term, which resulted in him lying to the American people and then under oath, you might've seen a Dick Cheney, James Baker, Newt Gingrich or Donald Rumsfeld run and win, as all were floated as potential candidates in '96 before Clinton's approval rebounded.
Clinton screwed up badly in 1998. He personally was able to overcome it - but the fact he risked it all for a lousy blowjob is not a character attribute I look for in a politician.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)It doesn't speak well to his judgement or character, but oh silly me, I forgot. It is a Democrat doing something inappropriate with his dick. Let us hoist our new libertine hero upon our shoulders and carry him to victory. We wouldn't want to be mistaken for oppressive authoritarians by allowing ourselves to have ANY expectations of self-control or common sense.
If an already disgraced Republican had some sort of weird exhibitionist fetish we would nail them to the wall.
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)
Myrina
(12,296 posts)... that may need professional attention.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)It's so much easier if we can judge our candidates based on who they share their naughty parts with.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)judgment of the legions of corporate enablers, "free traders", NSA snoopers, food stamp and Social Security cutters, corporate welfare enablers, war mongers, drug warriors/drug worriers, and pollution protectors.
Yeah, it sure is about judgment. I've judged the bulk of the political class far less worthwhile than this guy and it isn't even close.
dkf
(37,305 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Sort of bothers me.
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)you and someone asked "do you think they have ever cheated on you?" And you lie and tell the stranger that you don't think they have.
Should you not tell the truth? This stranger may not be voting for you but perhaps they are someone who may offer you business or a job, or maybe they would consider allowing you to borrow and use their property in the future. What does it say about you if you lie to them about that? Could they never trust your moral character after such a lie?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)" Because it's not anyone's concern..."
Quite the catch-all justification for almost any lie you've invented there. With a mere teaspoon of imagination, one may easily rationalize as to why anything one does is not part and parcel of anyone else's business.
But in the end, I suppose those weak of character and lacking integrity will jump through flaming hoops to validate dishonesty through the use of a proxy.
HipChick
(25,612 posts)
Ilsa
(64,368 posts)And then hurts them again, publicly. If he has no problem hurting the person he lives the most, what's to keep him from screwing over constituents?
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)it's about not understanding where boundaries are, lying about his behavior, and lack of impulse control. None of which are confidence-building in a politician. He's toast after this speech (I hope).
If he just sexts with others then that's between him & his wife.
HOWEVER, my understanding is that at least some of Weiner's weiner display was "unsolicited"--ie. inflicted on people without warning. In that case, I call him an e-flasher. A need to flash is not so much about sex. It's about other stuff, creepy & addictive.
Which brings me to the second point, which is, in the disingenuous speech he made today he again used the argument that "he was going through a bad time in his marriage, blah blah blah..." implying sexual or intimacy problems. But there's not much logic to this argument since flashing is not a typical response to marital problems. So as Rachel pointed out--it's the LYING--to himself and his supporters that is the worst of it. You can't trust him. He seems to operate out of some kind of narcissist delusion at this point. His wife is trying to fix the marriage, but she will be battling a strong addiction. Maybe with a therapist he can find self-control.
This isn't "sexting"--this IMO, is flashing which is not a form of sex when unsolicited. It is an aggressive crossing of boundaries, using sexual imagery for it's shock value and the goal is to get attention, not sex.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 24, 2013, 01:22 AM - Edit history (1)
narcissist who is a slave to his own ego.
He is also a joke on two feet.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)The blatant and obvious lie when all of this stated shows that...
a) Terrible decision making
b) Poor judgement
c) Will blame others for his problems
d) The infidelity part, if you care... Some do .. Some don't
In short, he is too demonstrably stupid to do the job...
Edit - Holy monkey Jesus! I just woke up and read the rest of the news. This guy shouldn't be allowed outside without a foam helmet on both his head and his crotch. Maybe two little tiny ones on his texting thumbs.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,996 posts)that should do it.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Friends don't let friends sext while driving.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You should care.
ksoze
(2,068 posts)It's not the mortality, its the apparent inability to control what could be acts which could expose him to threats of exposure, etc. What he does on his free time with whom is his business, but as a mayoral candidate for a major world city, his obvious addictive behavior is problematic. There was reports of him offering jobs and money - yeah, they all offer friends things, but it is a little dicey with random internet pals.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'd imagine many people believe that integrity and character may not be compartmentalized, and if a candidate illustrates a lack of both or either, then one may indeed, predicate their votes on that.
However, I am also aware that many people believe integrity may be compartmentalized, and that a complete disregard for good judgment in one instance may not be illustrative of their disregard for their use of good judgment en toto.
For my own part, I think it's been exemplified, quite accurately and quite often since Pres. Clinton that if the media and the opposition are going to latch onto these peccadilloes and raise them to the standard of scandals, then only an idiot would involve him- or herself in a potential scandal... and I don't vote for idiots.
markpkessinger
(8,912 posts). . . I DO care that after having been tripped up by this behavior once, and clearly intending to return to politics at some point, he was stupid enough to get caught up in the same business again AFTER it had come to light the first time. I had been planning on voting for the guy, but now, I have to wonder, if he were elected, how many more of these embarrassing press conferences will we have to endure? I do care that he apparently lacks the self-control to avoid being needlessly self-destructive. The last thing the city needs is a mayor with a long, slow drip of a scandal, coming to light bit by bit throughout his term.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)alc
(1,151 posts)He had mentioned recently that there may be more but didn't give details. It's probably safe to assume he didn't want those details out. What other details in his past or future will he not want out? And what will he do to keep them from getting out? He obviously didn't stop after being caught the first time so you can't say definitely that there won't be future issues.
Even if he does nothing else and never gets blackmailed, his decisions will be open to extra questions (i.e. did he do that because someone has something on him?)
And some people are likely to not want to get to close to him. He may not be able to create as good of a staff if the best people have concerns that they may have to spend time defending him from stuff like this or the administration is likely get distracted by his behavior rather than be focused on the needs of the city.
And, most important is trust. A LOT of the power of a leader is based on trust. If people trust him, they are more likely to be ok with things he does even if they don't agree. If the other party (and even his own) trust him, they are more likely to be willing to compromise. If his friends trust him, they'll help when he asks or when they see him in need (lobbying, advising, warning, etc). If not, they'll remain "friends" and talk at parties, but not go out of their way. It's hard to argue that anyone should trust him. I can't compartmentalize trust. Most people I've known who are untrustworthy in one part of their life end up being that way in other parts.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)Though maybe he might be an approvment over the idiots we have in office now.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)I'd agree that private sexual (whatever) amongst consenting adults -- by itself-- doesn't bear on fitness to lead.
Lying's a problem, though. It's why Sanford's "hiking" trips should have done him in. Weiner lied the first time he got hit with this, then made the rounds to say he'd beaten this particular impulse, apparently after he'd done what they're talking about now.
So he didn't have the self-control to not do this particular, easily exploitable thing, AND couldn't figure out how to do it without someone later clobbering him with it, *even after* getting nailed for it once, AND tried to tell everyone he was over the whole idea, while he was still doing it.
It's clownish, and it's distracting. And apparently it's something he's compulsive about, or he would have stopped when he said he did. And it's such easy fodder for a set-up.
I like Weiner's politics on most things, and his pugnacious style. If NY wants to elect him, so be it.
But I can also see how people would be tired of lurid stories and awkward apologies at this point, too.