Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Scandalous Politicians Poll


vcczar
 Share

Scandalous Politicians Poll  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Which Politicians Are Too Ethically-Challenged, Dishonest, Corrupt, Perverted, etc. to Hold Office?

    • Andrew Cuomo
    • Matt Gaetz
    • Donald Trump
    • Brett Kavanaugh
    • Michael Flynn
    • Rudy Giuliani
    • Katie Hill
    • Al Franken
    • Roy Moore
    • Marjorie Taylor Greene
    • Hillary Clinton
    • Barack Obama
    • George W Bush
    • Dick Cheney
    • Ilhan Omar
    • None of the above. Even if they're unethical or whatever, they should be permitted to hold office.
  2. 2. Should any of the above be incarcerated?



Recommended Posts

It’s not my place to decide who has broken the law so I can’t answer question 2. 

For question 1, I believe that the one to hold those accountable should be the people. If they want to run for office, let them lose. If the people don’t find their crimes too egregious they’ll win their seat anyway and prove that they still represent their constituents. 

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Patine said:

Except for Flynn and Marjorie-Green, @ConservativeElector2 did not check a SINGLE Republican, but a LOT of Democrats. I call out his party-uber-al bias again! A bias by many that is destroying TRUE integrity and credibility in politics and ruining any good Government can REALLY do for it's people. Political parties in many countries - ESPECIALLY ones like the United States - have become a toxic tumor than are at the stage of doing more harm than good and are a demarcation point of divisiveness and counter-productiveness, backed up by a growing culture of lies and internal, vicious hatred. DOWN WITH THE PARTISAN HEGEMONY! Make political parties the SERVANTS of the peoples, not the ruiners and dividers of the nations. End and scour purist, staunch, blindly loyalist partisan thinking forever! And end giving high criminals a by - and even praise - because they're of YOUR party, even for doing as despicable things as those you call out in the OTHER party! Party loyalty and unity, at the end of the day, if push comes to shove, should be worth used toilet paper - pre-COVID outbreak values - to a voter with any sense, integrity, love for their nation, and desire for true improvement and advancement.

I disagree. He chose only two Democrats: Cuomo and Ilhan Omar. The former is selected by several Democrats while only the latter is questionable. Even then, he did not select Obama, Clinton, Katie Hill, etc who all have some questionable ethics. @ConservativeElector2 is definitely the most partisan member of the forum for his team but in the case of this poll I just don’t see it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Patine said:

Except for Flynn and Marjorie-Green, @ConservativeElector2 did not check a SINGLE Republican, but a LOT of Democrats. I call out his party-uber-al bias again! A bias by many that is destroying TRUE integrity and credibility in politics and ruining any good Government can REALLY do for it's people. Political parties in many countries - ESPECIALLY ones like the United States - have become a toxic tumor than are at the stage of doing more harm than good and are a demarcation point of divisiveness and counter-productiveness, backed up by a growing culture of lies and internal, vicious hatred. DOWN WITH THE PARTISAN HEGEMONY! Make political parties the SERVANTS of the peoples, not the ruiners and dividers of the nations. End and scour purist, staunch, blindly loyalist partisan thinking forever! And end giving high criminals a by - and even praise - because they're of YOUR party, even for doing as despicable things as those you call out in the OTHER party! Party loyalty and unity, at the end of the day, if push comes to shove, should be worth used toilet paper - pre-COVID outbreak values - to a voter with any sense, integrity, love for their nation, and desire for true improvement and advancement.

You're so warped in your hatred (invalid and unjust criticism + hatred boner for the Bush Administration) that you didn't even check off people like Roy Moore. IM not agreeing with CE2's votes, but I'm just keeping it a level playing field here. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Cal said:

It’s not my place to decide who has broken the law so I can’t answer question 2. 

For question 1, I believe that the one to hold those accountable should be the people. If they want to run for office, let them lose. If the people don’t find their crimes too egregious they’ll win their seat anyway and prove that they still represent their constituents. 

@vcczar I'm of a similar mindset, I did select yes though because I do believe some of these people I have selected will end up going to jail eventually. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@ConservativeElector2I’m curious what you are think Omar did that’s worse than Trump or Gaetz? Also which of those you marked should be in jail?

It's up to the justice system to decide whether anyone should go to jail or not. I strongly believe there are reasons for such a verdict in various cases. Maybe that's true for even more cases then I have checked, but I don't believe all of these possible actions/crimes whatever should result in an immediate office ban. I believe as long as someone isn't convicted (and incarcerated) it's up to the voters to vote them into/out of an office or not.

I cannot determine whether federal hate crime laws can apply to MTG or Omar. MTG made a clown of herself, Omar is potentially very dangerous but so far both have ''just'' spoken insanely. If these statements don't fall under federal hate crime laws, I cannot see a possibility to send them to prison or force their resignation while I'd strongly recommend at least a resignation.

Checking these boxes is primarily based on what I am able to tolerate from a lawmaker and it's entirely subjective. It doesn't mean anyone should be viewed as guilty if not found guilty by a court or being heard delivering a confession. The same certainly goes for Cuomo. On the other hand there are lots of proof on Twitter for the things I cannot stand from Omar, MTG and Flynn I believe. So, we don't really need a verdict here but anyway...

As I have stressed with the Gaetz case I am waiting for a credible verdict. I lack the inside and don't consider him as really significant overall. For Trump, while his actions mentioned in the Hollywood access tape are utterly disgusting, I don't believe a shady businessman bragging about sexually abusive behavior is as bad as a vitriolic anti-semitic congressperson. While you have got a lot of scumbags abusing their power or money to coerce people into sexual acts, a more or less openly anti-semitic congressperson is way worse and way more dangerous in fact.

You may have actually noticed that over the years I grew more and more disappointed with Republicans as well. It's not the level of Austrian politicians even right-wingers, but there are more nutjobs emerging within the ranks of the GOP. Generally it's a good marker to determine whether you have to fear them running or not. Like with those costing ''us'' winnable races by not looking at their electibility or those constantly attacking their own people instead of the other party. To name a few in a list which is surely incomplete: Trump, Gaetz, MTG, Kobach, Boebert, Amanda Chase, John Cox, Dan Patrick, Eric Greitens.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Patine said:

I call out his party-uber-al bias again!

So I'd say ideology matters more for me, than partisanship or do you think I would vote for MTG (R) in a race against Warnock (D) and David Perdue (I) running as an independent?? I may had done this a few years ago, but we are all growing more mature.

But anyway as the majority on this forum are die-hard Democratic supporters, who are rarely being called out for doing so (which is fine, as every one is allowed to believe in what they think is best), I will leave it here for others to decide, whether it's the Republican supporter who commits an error by being generally loyal to ''his'' party...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Cal said:

I disagree. He chose only two Democrats: Cuomo and Ilhan Omar. The former is selected by several Democrats while only the latter is questionable. Even then, he did not select Obama, Clinton, Katie Hill, etc who all have some questionable ethics. @ConservativeElector2 is definitely the most partisan member of the forum for his team but in the case of this poll I just don’t see it.

Thank you. Of course most people on this list have questionable ethics, but does that mean they should automatically being banned from holding office? My answer is in most most cases NO. They aren't convicted or incarcerated. 

We have seen a two term presidency of Obama and a years long stint from Clinton as SoS and the sun will luckily still rise tomorrow. Katie Hill is anyway insignificant. It's not like the worst had happened under the aforementioned people's leadership and it would not either happen if they were in power again. Of course the Obama presidency was bad but mostly for it's policies, not entirely for their overall ethics. As I have stressed it's up to the courts to make such mandates, but if there isn't a general danger looming from someone, I don't see an immediate reason for not allwoing them to hold office if voted into one.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cal said:

It’s not my place to decide who has broken the law so I can’t answer question 2. 

For question 1, I believe that the one to hold those accountable should be the people. If they want to run for office, let them lose. If the people don’t find their crimes too egregious they’ll win their seat anyway and prove that they still represent their constituents. 

While I can see where you're coming from, sometimes the facts and reality of the situation are a little bit difficult to acknowledge. These people, in most cases, are representing the U.S. government - particularly governors and senators. They have access to quite a bit of inside information, sit on committees, and form policy in D.C. Do I want someone like Gaetz (should he be charged) or Cuomo in charge of setting policy on sexual harassment? No, quite frankly, I don't want them anywhere near that. Gaetz currently sits on the Armed Forces and Judiciary committees. The Armed Services committee is crucial to sexual harassment in the military. Just because a district or state is ultra-partisan does not mean they should get a free sheet to run for re-election. 

It's uncomfortable to acknowledge that a lot of places (red and blue) in the United States are so partisan that they would allow even an accused child sex offender like Roy Moore to nearly be elected, or maybe Cuomo to be re-elected, or something similar. That's why there are resignations, and that is why there is impeachment and conviction. They do not have to only prove themselves to their district to be elected, but they have to be held to a high standard by colleagues and the people of the United States at large. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hestia said:

I will note that Franken stepping down was definitely the right move and will defend that action. However, it was his decision to make and I'm not sure he would've lost the full trust of his voters, but his replacement is doing just fine.

I wanted Franken to be President and sincerely believed 2020 would be his year, before the scandal was revealed.  
 

After that, he absolutely had to resign and I’m glad he made that choice.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Patine said:

I just filled this out. My vote takes into account that I don't know nearly enough about Giuliani, Moore, Hill, or Taylor Greene's case or true likelihood to be guilty or innocence, personally, and while the conduct and rushing of the Kavanagh hearing - and, disappointingly and unethically, again - coming down to an almost party-line vote - I can't actually say whether he's innocent or guilty, myself. I am rather disturbed by the fact that I am the only one that listed Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Cheney as criminals. Do people here REALLY believe that utter abuse of political power beyond Constitutional limits, corruption on the highest levels of Government, lying bald-faced to the people about fake casus bellis for illegal wars to enrich big corruptions, violating basic Constitutional rights and protections and creating and enabling more power to secret police agencies and terrorist groups, and committing torture are not nearly as criminal as personal conduct crimes, and, in fact, deserve a by from even being called out as criminals and deserving trial and punishment on the same list? Is that what people here REALLY believe? And, if so, it really makes me question the sense of JUSTICE and how it is viewed here, I'm afraid.

Sincere question: who was the last US President we’ve had who you would not categorize as a criminal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Take note @SilentLiberty

Calvin Coolidge, judging by criminal activity in office.

But that isn't an excuse to continue tolerating such things.

Ok.  Thank you for that answer.

 

So...Coolidge left office 92 years ago.

 

if every single person who had worked in a specific job for the past 91 years ended up going to prison, would YOU sign up to be next in line for that job?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

I had called out recently all the flaws in Biden and Harris, and why they weren't the great treasures of candidates they were made to be, nor the best ones for the job, even from the perspectives of the needs and desires of the majority of Democratic voters. But that was drowned out in a chorus of, "but Trump had to be defeated at all costs, and nothing else mattered." Of course, given Trump has also highly atrocious and awful failure, I was at a loss of how to respond, but it began my view of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election as a very bleak event, and a betrayal of the American voters.

Well, I agree with you on virtually everything here. Biden and Harris are bad, Trump was bad either especially on a personal level. No doubt on that. Today I read a good quote of Dean Heller. He was “100 percent against Clinton, 99 percent against Trump.” 

So, the only point in which I differ from the others  is that my chorus goes "but the Democrats had to be defeated at all costs".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Yes, because I would campaign on integrity. 😛

I’m sure you would.  And you’d still end up in prison.

Jimmy Carter was a bad President because he had too much integrity.  A rare problem, I will admit!

But when even Jimmy Carter gets locked up in your prison, then nobody — not even you — can possibly avoid that fate.  


Your standards are literally too impossible to be taken seriously.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Patine said:

declaring an illegal war based on lies whose consequences have been immense

Based on the intelligence at the time it was not an "illegal war" whatever that means anyways. Faulty and not 100% accurate intelligence does NOT equal a lie. It never does. We have to rely on what we have, and where we are. The facts remain that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous dictator who IF he had gained WOMD... he would have without a doubt exploited them in some way shape or form to get his demands whether that be threatening and killing his own people, or the nations surrounding him. 

17 minutes ago, Patine said:

supporting a terrorist group, and empowering them further, while claiming to be fighting terror,

What lol

17 minutes ago, Patine said:

and authorizing a despicable and unacceptable IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES tactic like torture to be brought to justice?

When the lives of Americans are at stake and on the whims of a captured terrorist who IF he spills the beans, it ends up saving American lives... it's quite a nasty affair, but it is necessary. Because these terrorists have no regard for human life, they are savages, twisted, screwed up human beings. If one of them has to get waterboarded or his arm broken for him to give us the intel to save American and civilian lives, I say it's worth it. Because at the end of the day, it's self defense when it's those bastards who flew planes into the Twin Towers. They not only want to kill America, I'm sure they'd want to kill you or any one of us if they got their hands on us. I have no remorse for them. And I will not cry tears over them, because at the end of the day, they don't give a fuck about you or me, only fulfilling their psychopathic needs. Maybe you're a better person than me for seemingly feeling bad for these people, and to be fair, I do too, I don't know what bullshit they had to endure to believe what they believe... but when it's the lives of civilians against them, I would not hesitate to authorize what is necessary to keep my people, and other people safe. 

 

18 minutes ago, Patine said:

And why will you not call him out for his crimes, but instead deny they actually ARE crimes, and just insult me disingenuously for bringing them up?

Because you throw around "Criminal" to the point it's so meaningless when I hear it from you. You'd be just as crazy as an Alex Jones conspiracy nutjob if you ever went to an Obama event. Just as bad as the #LockHillaryUp people... you'd be shouting #LockObamaUp 🤣

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patine said:

That's when you decentralized top executive authority from one person to a committee with membership based on region, like the Swiss Federal Council, to prevent such apex level abuse by singular authority. It's something I'd always brought up to @vcczar's hypothetical Constitutional convention threads, in fact.

A Swiss model would not work with the U.S. Other countries' could, but not Switzerland. The country is too big, the need for quick action wouldn't work well with it. The countries' circumstances are too different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Patine said:

Quick action by the Executive, before the Legislative, Judicial, and State components can catch up, has become a big part of the PROBLEM in modern U.S. Government, though.

Sure, but putting that power back in the hands of the Legislature is a better fix than blowing up the executive entirely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Patine said:

Repetition from one source doesn't invalid a true claim.

In this case your claim isnt true. And a claim isnt true anyways. 😛

Here's a claim, Jagmeet and the NDP are corrupt and need to be arrested alongside Trudeau. 😛

Here's a even bolder claim of your caliber. Every politician and person in the world is corrupt, evil, and amoral. Except myself of course. Because I know what's best for nations. And I'm smarter than everyone. I even use big words to prove it! 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Cheney and Bush should face an International Tribunal and they can decide their fate. I don't think Bush is a bad person, but his administration got him into highly controversial actions, decisions, etc. The buck stops at his desk though. 

Trump, MTG, Gaetz, Flynn and anyone that supported, encouraged, calling for a presidential nominee to be locked up who hasn't been charged with a crime, and still encourage the Jan 6th insurrection and are openly encouraging people to not get vaccination in a pandemic should probably face a trial with some jailtime if found guilty. 

Gaetz and Moore should also probably be in prison for sex with a minor, if he's found guilty. 

Flynn and possibly Trump for the Ukraine scandal. 

Honestly, I think any Federal politician should be held to higher ethical standards and, therefore, serve harsher punishments for defying these standards. Integrity must be a part of Federal office holding. One doesn't need to be a Jimmy Carter, but they should at least not be a chronic liar, chronically corrupt, chronically criminal, a sex offender, a sex assaulter, etc., etc., etc. 

I think a combination of a harsh ethical code + redistricting and other election reform will bring back trust in the Federal government. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Patine said:

That's when you decentralized top executive authority from one person to a committee with membership based on region, like the Swiss Federal Council, to prevent such apex level abuse by singular authority. It's something I'd always brought up to @vcczar's hypothetical Constitutional convention threads, in fact.

So, just abuse by regional representatives then? ;c)

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...