Disgraced politicians | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » Main Forum » Politics
Ghostly1 Nov 8 '13
Currently staring at me in my news feed is the current mayor of Toronto openly admitting(finally) to smoking crack and plotting to kill people while in public office.  

I do find this funny, hilarious even because we are always quick to dismiss Canadians to be anything but nice neighbours or so the memes would have you believe.  It's worth mentioning because we in the United States have a more storied past of people elected to run the country stepping on their dicks.  

It should also be mentioned that his honor is making it clear he intends to stay in office despite the evidence.  Not being at all familiar with Canadian law I would not assume impeachment or criminal proceedings would be forthcoming.  Unless the easy going attitude allows for politicians to embarrass themselves and shed a dark light on the constituents they represent.  

Locally, several years back we had an issue with a elected official quietly embezzling public funds and taking bribes to the tune of millions of dollars over several years.  He was so bold he even named the local airport after himself while still in office.  The seat has since been updated to include a less douche-like occupant who actually does the job without sticking their hands in the cookie jar in a more obvious manner.  

Last year/early this year the local Head of the dept of highways was conveniently on vacation when the northeast was hit with that massive snowstorm which sent everything into gridlock.  The state of emergency was compounded by the recent aftermath of super storm Sandy and many residential areas were still struggling to recover.  It was later found out the reasons for his absence was a lie and he was quickly replaced as well.  

When Bill was running the show, we all remember the dress and the stain yet he maintained his popularity.  Client #9 Spitzer, Weinergate,  and other worthy candidates for flushing down the toilet of shame.  

When is it too much for these people to stay in office?

What standards do we judge them on, irregardless of how effective they are if they have no standards themselves?

Shouldn't the punishment, or shame for being a bottom feeder charged with the public trust be liable for stiffer penalties in the eyes of the law having been above the law when they committed these acts?

This is where I mention the same should go for law enforcement officials.  If you break the law while under oath, or wearing a badge you should get double the punishment because you knew better.  Satanically correct or not, being selfish and deceitful when you choose to carry the mantle of office it is assumed you are speaking for the people.  Your wants and needs should come secondary to the society in which you serve.  Taken in that context most of the LHP would steer clear of a public office because it is contradictory to the growth of a individual.  (Insight roles aside)

Is corruption something you find distasteful despite sinister thinking?  (because they beat you to it)

Would you see it as a reflection on you?

Do you see it as stealing from your very pocket?

If we assume no matter who we elect to be a thief or a scumbag how do we proceed if not by demonstrating our willingness to punish and embarrass those who take their elected privilege too far.

CanisMachina Nov 8 '13
It is only dishonorable when you get caught, otherwise your just a politician. It would be naïve to assume that corruption is the minority. Politics is tailored for the self-serving personality, despite any claims to altruism. Why? Because a politician's title is bought and paid for. They exist to serve the needs of campaign contributors, lobbyists, and other special interest. Yet, they must appear to be serving public interest.

When they get caught I personally find it hilarious. It follows a formula that can be applied to almost every instance of 'corruption'. Denial, public condemnation, justification, admission, and resignation/removal.

The only thing I find distasteful is that they become profusely apologetic when other methods fail to placate public sentiment. Hold to denial if your ultimately going to be removed from office. Those that put you there no longer have an interest to defend you. Otherwise, I do not think their corruption has an effect on myself. They are just figureheads after all. They are all cast of a like mold, and this behavior is to be expected.

As an aside, Just once (though it would never happen) I want to see a politician hold a press conference and say, "Yup, I was in Argentina fucking my mistress. What you gonna do about it, bitch?"
The Forum post is edited by CanisMachina Nov 8 '13
Ghostly1 Nov 8 '13
Quote from ClaudeRains

As an aside, Just once (though it would never happen) I want to see a politician hold a press conference and say, "Yup, I was in Argentina fucking my mistress. What you gonna do about it, bitch?"

You mean be honest and forthright?  LOL

I deducted a long time ago people are only visibly and orally "sorry" and apologetic because they were caught.  Otherwise it would be business as usual.   

SIN_JONES Nov 9 '13
Quote from ClaudeRains The only thing I find distasteful is that they become profusely apologetic when other methods fail to placate public sentiment.

This case comes to mind.  Using 'Always' is key here, it's obviously something he personally feels it's worth repeating, yet to placate the oh so sensitive public, he takes it back?  Apologizes for being inappropriate?  The plebs are fickle and flighty, what is disgraceful is walking on egg-shells and taking office to serve the public interests.  Obviously, he's not interested.  He's more interested in his own views on topics such as the Death Penalty.

“I always say that every killer should have the right to a rope in his cell and be able to decide on his life, but I’m against the death penalty,” he told reporters earlier while discussing the work of a Senate committee that will have the final say on a sweeping government crime bill.

CanisMachina Nov 9 '13

Quote from SIN_JONESyet to placate the oh so sensitive public, he takes it back?  Apologizes for being inappropriate?  
This same motif is repeated among many in the public spotlight. Goes to show opinions be damned if it entails loss of reputation. Don Imus' infamous "nappy headed ho" comment concerning the Rutgers basketball team is just one of many instances when public outrage over a harmless comment forces fervent recanting of ones commentary. They then embark on an "apology tour" to try to clear their name. Apparently words really can lynch (people) in a back alley.
The Forum post is edited by CanisMachina Nov 9 '13
SIN_JONES Nov 9 '13
Right, giving into the mob in any context is disgraceful, you've fallen from grace!
voidritual Nov 9 '13
There was a David Brin quote that I find applicable that went something like: 'It's been said that power corrupts, but it is actually more true that power attracts the corruptible." Evey other election cycle or so you hear some clattering of people asking for "better politicians". Would forcing altruism of the democratic process vis a vis removing any benefit from holding elected office solve the problem?
Ghostly1 Nov 9 '13
For what should be obvious, the benefits and pay attributed to public office and the high standards and campaigning ensures we at least get a reasonably intelligent legislator instead of someone who just wants to "do what they think is right" which could be much worse.  The allure of power and pay is what drives some to run for office in the first place.  It's been mentioned before but I live in a area where the police are the highest paid in the world.  Selection for the job is stringent and they only take the top 1% of those who pass the entry exam.  A college degree is required and a clean record.  After 5 years a rookie officer will be nearing $100k a year with average overtime pay, and full paid benefits.  They don't even have to buy uniforms.  

It's been my assumption that despite the high wages, those who would actually still want the job would do so with lower pay if not for the pay then for the power they perceive and the prestige.  The same could be said for public office, but let us not forget the increased salaries and benefits were brokered by those who held the post previously and were of course looking out for themselves while in office.  As the time passes it is easy to see how such things can increase.  

But it is somewhat insulting to those who do the same work, for far less pay.  I do not feel raising the pay will bring a better person, it will just make them more greedy and more distant in their view as they will feel more entitled to deference with those under them. 

SIN_JONES Nov 10 '13
See: Virginia Elections Board, provided you meet all the qualifications anyone can run for office.  If monetary gain is the only driving force, it's about landing a job not really fulfilling the Office position.  

In the recent election Cuccinelli lost because of his personal views on social issues as a matter of law that didn't serve the public interest of Virginia constituents.

At every turn, they were using the Cuch's words against him, especially in the area of Women's Health, Education and Social Welfare.  

Even if some of his ideas made economic sense, people don't want to hear that.  They don't want to hear that Women can't get an abortion even if they are raped.  They don't want to hear that Climate Change is a Hoax or that tax-payer money should be channeled elsewhere vs. supporting the unemployed and disenfranchised.  Too many people felt this way and he fell from Grace.

It's not that he did anything shady, he just needed better public campaign. He was catering to small audience. 

voidritual Nov 16 '13
Quote from Ghostly1 we at least get a reasonably intelligent legislator instead of someone who just wants to "do what they think is right" which could be much worse.
Conviction politics has been ingrained into the political process to the extent that it hides in plain sight - through donor pools, party platforms, associations, primaries, etc. And most allow it or are oblivious to its existence. The only instance that we, as voters, are made aware is when a politician's conviction does not match the stance that they associated with to win an election.

Issue Reporting

Report any issues to satanhimself@circleofdescent.com. He may, or may not, get back to you in a timely manner.