Jump to content
The Political Lounge

US Politician Hall of Shame


vcczar

Recommended Posts

I think the following should arguably be selected to the US Politician Hall of Shame. Who else would you add and for what reasons?

  • Sen. James Henry Hammond (SC) for raping his four teenage nieces, for having been known to have raped some of his slaves, for enslaving 300 people, for being one of the leaders of the Pro-Slavery wing, and for being a Secessionist.
  • Sen. Benjamin Tillman (SC) for advocating violence against blacks, for admitting to have helped kill them, for being a prime mover in the disenfranchisement of blacks, and for being the political leader of the pro-lynching movement.
  • Sen. James K Vardaman (MS) for declaring his openness to lynching every black person to maintain white supremacy
  • Gen. Benedict Arnold (RI) for traitorous behavior during the Revolutionary War, including turning over West Point to the British and joining their army. 
  • Sen. Joseph McCarthy (WI) for being the leader of the Red Scare and McCarthyism, which ruined the lives and careers of many innocent people. 
  • Gen. James Wilkinson (MD) for making attempts to gain land for himself from Spain, was involved with the Burr Conspiracy, neglected his troops when they were dying of disease, and never won a battle. Used military position primarily for personal gain. 
  • Gen. Daniel E Twiggs (GA) for surrendering the entire Dept of Texas to Confederates before the Civil War officially began. 
  • VP Aaron Burr (NY) for shooting and killing Alexander Hamilton, for his involvement in the Burr Conspiracy, for refusing to back down in the 1800 election, nearly putting out election system at risk.
  • Pres. Andrew Jackson (TN) for implementing the "Trail of Tears" and the Indian Removal Act.
  • Pres. Donald Trump (NY/FL) for unpresidential behavior, primarily general  spread of misinformation that lead to the Jan 6th Insurrection, likely increased COVID fatalities, support for authoritarian critics of the US, not accepting election results, for his support for easily-disputed conspiracy theories, and for inspiring a new generation of politicians that embraces all of this.
  • Pres. Richard Nixon (CA) for the Watergate coverup. 
  • Gov. George C. Wallace (AL) for his opposition leadership to racial integration.
  • Rep. Lewis Charles Levin (PA) for being the primary founder of the anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant Know Nothing party, which often inspired violence and sought political and citizenship restrictions against these demographics.
  • Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt (NY) for authorizing the Japanese internment camps
  • Ch. J. Roger B Taney (MD) for using his position as Chief Justice in support of the slavocracy, especially in the case of Dred Scott.  
  • Sec. Alexander Hamilton (NY) for pressuring (but failing) to have the NY Gov nullify election results in 1800. 
  • Spkr Newt Gingrich (GA) for hiding his own marital affair while leading an impeachment against a president for having lied about a marital affair.
  • Spkr Dennis Hastert (IL) for child molestation
  • Pres. Warren G Harding (OH) for acknowledging the rampant corruption of his administration but for doing nothing about it and for recognizing he was in over his head as president and not resigning
  • Pres. Woodrow Wilson (NJ) for segregating the federal workforce and for refusing to resign after suffering a debilitating stroke. 
  • Rep. Samuel Dickstein (NY) for being a paid spy for the Soviet Union
  • Sen. Strom Thurmond (SC) for being among the last leaders in an attempt to block equality for blacks, despite having fathered a black illegitimate child he never publicly acknowledged. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Dobs said:

I disagree with McCarthy, Nixon, Gingrich, and Harding, the rest I would support. I, of course, disagree with each of Patine's selections.

Why McCarthy? I get why you would say the rest, I would personally agree most with Nixon because of how heinous Watergate is, but I do understand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Dobs said:

I disagree with McCarthy, Nixon, Gingrich, and Harding, the rest I would support. I, of course, disagree with each of Patine's selections.

I agree with all of your points except McCarthy's. So you get an agree emote for the broad majority from me 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Patine said:

President George W. Bush for passing the worst act of treason and the biggest single blow to the U.S. Constitutional guarantees in a single package of legislation - the (Un)Patriot Act, for showing the utmost of contempt for the limits of his office and the powers thereof, and for starting an ancillary war based on lies and illegal pretense that ended up being one of the United States' most disastrous ever fought - the Iraq War.

Vice-President Dick Cheney, for manipulating President Bush's actions to wage an illegal war against Iraq for the benefit of a large contracting corporation he was on the board of directors of (Haliburton - major conflict of interests), among other such corporations, and for personally authorizing and ordering the use of torture in interrogation, something unacceptable for any modern, civilized nations, or for anyone who isn't a sick animal who should be locked away in a facility like Hannibal Lector was in, "the Silence of the Lambs."

President Barack Obama, for carrying on Bush's illegal and treasonous policies faithfully, and declaring Snowden and Manning were actually the traitors, when they were, in truth, brave patriots risking everything to reveal the Government's acts of treason against their people, which said people deserved to know about, and real criminal consequences should have been levied against said Government over.

Just those three?  You usually denounce nearly every President.  I, for one, welcome this more forgiving Patine.  ;c)

  • Haha 1
  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For myself, I'd add every politician who endorsed Donald Trump and every politician who claims the 2020 election was rigged/falsified, and every politician who supports the January 6th terrorists.

But that would be such an impossibly long list, it would make more sense to make a list of Republican officials who don't fall into at least one of those categories.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

James Eastland - A racist and anti-semite

Trent Lott - Connections with the Council of Conservative Citizens, voted no on bill regretting lynching

Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar, Mo Brooks - traitors

Maxine Waters & every politician connected to Farrakhan - but esp. Waters a pro-Castro politician - also seems to be pretty crazy (I think she is said to have incited violence too)

David Duke, Bibb Graves, etc.  - All those who were in the KKK

Steve King - white supremacist

Edwin Edwards - corrupt

Rebecca Latimer Felton - Advocated more lynchings, called African-Americans "beasts", etc.

John Bigler, Denis Kearney, Horace F. Page - anti-Chinese xenophobes

Rod Blagojevich - corrupt

Preston Brooks and all those fire-eaters

Andrew Cuomo - nursing home scandal, sexual assault, self-promotion, etc.

Anthony Weiner - pretty obvious

Sidney Catts - racist, corrupt

JFK & RFK - Two brothers having an affair with the same woman

Ted Kennedy - Chappaquidick

Donald Trump - a long list

Joe Biden - approved of his son marrying his brother's wife

Dianne Feinstein - her conduct is questionable (Kavanaugh accusations. etc)

LBJ - If he turns out to be behind Kennedy's Assasination

Marjorie Taylor Greene & Lauren Boebert - Qanon, extremists, etc.

Cynthia McKinney - Anti-Semite, the left-wing version of MTG, IMO

Boss Tweed & any Tammany Hall politician - corruption, truly crooks

any politician who supported or downplayed the storming of Wisconsin's capitol to say nothing of any politician who downplayed or supported the storming of the US Capitol

and probably every single politician in Jeffrey Epstein's phonebook

Edited by Timur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Patine said:

I would like to add every U.S. politicians who has invoked the services of, praised, arranged for the funding of, or sponsored harbourage or protection, or denial of crimes, of the world's largest, best funded, and most prolific terrorist organization by definition - even as defined by wording in the U.S. Criminal Code - the CIA...

Do you think there should be mass trials of most US politician? I definitely would not as I think scare tactics aren't a good strategy. I'm getting a hint of McCarthyism from you (although engineered with much better intentions). I would probably only punish those are the very top -- those that issue orders and those that craft the plans o which the orders are issues. I'm not sure what level of punishment would be satisfactory for the crime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

There are crimes in the U.S. Criminal Code for aiding, abetting, funding, and collaborating with terrorist organizations as it stands. And they are very serious crimes with hefty penalties. They just to be applied.

I guess what I'm asking is, would you feel comfortable, if you lived in America, with tens of thousands--if not hundreds of thousands--of politicians (mostly Republicans) being rounded up and put on trial? As proper as it may be, do you see any repercussions from this? I'd imagine 7 out of 10 of those rounded up would be Republicans or Republican-leaning independents. It would probably be labeled a purge. It certainly would be a shock to the system with numerous negative side-effects. Basically, it would be akin to a body receiving chemotherapy. The country may or may not recover from a French Revolution-like round up. 

I'm in complete agreement with you in regards to punishing those that appear to be above the law, especially when they violate the law--US or international. However, my issue is with, how do we do it practically? And in a way that does the least damage to the domestic stability and defense capabilities (I literally mean defense here and not the ironic, defense meaning intervention)? How does one issue this purge, as proper as it may be, without it backfiring. This is the kind of thing in which the CIA would probably turn on the political leaders that try to purge them. Coups, counter-coups, lots of chaos that no American will want to deal with, even if it is for a just cause. Basically, since you brought this up, I'm curious how you would go about doing this in a way that maintains domestic stability and maintains security from potential nefarious behavior abroad while the country's leaders are being rounded up for former crimes? 

The stress of living in a time of domestic tribunals in this hypothetical scenario is unfathomable. It might be easier for you to suggest these trials because you don't live here. The potential political, governmental, and social collapse caused by a mass trial episode wouldn't effect you. 

Moreover, who fills the power-vacuum? In most countries in which there's a collapse cause by extreme measures (however, well intentioned they may be), is usually replaced by some form of totalitarian, who often becomes more corrupt because they have to ensure they have the loyalty of those that could turn on them. The leader, while centralizing power, start knocking off people that they perceive as threats to their power. 

I'm going on a tangent. Basically, you suggested the rounding up of these criminals. How do we enforce and apply it without causing this nightmare scenario I present?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Patine said:

I am appalled by your support due to disagreeing with indictment of some of the biggest stains on American Governance and integrity. Your credibility is slipping further. And disagreeing with McCarthy and the three I stated - which you used the term, "of course," for disagreeing with - from someone who claims to hold the U.S. Constitution and values the U.S. as a nation was built on so dear?

Luckily I don't derive my credibility from your opinions.

  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Gingrich is going to be on the list, the Clinton has to as well (he actually was the one who committed a crime). That was what Clinton was being impeached for, not an affair (big difference). And yes, it was a political move from Republican leadership for political points (just like the attempts against Trump).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

If Gingrich is going to be on the list, the Clinton has to as well (he actually was the one who committed a crime). That was what Clinton was being impeached for, not an affair (big difference). And yes, it was a political move from Republican leadership for political points (just like the attempts against Trump).

Gingrich is on their exclusively for the hypocrisy aspect. I would not have included him if it occurred when he wasn’t prosecuting someone for the same thing he  did. Trying to cover up an affair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

Gingrich is on their exclusively for the hypocrisy aspect. I would not have included him if it occurred when he wasn’t prosecuting someone for the same thing he  did. Trying to cover up an affair. 

Politicians having sexual relations with their staff is the grossest misuse of power that goes uncalled out. It’s common, even among some of the state gov I’ve worked with, and no one really thinks all that badly of it. We had rules not to share that kind of information or gossip about what politicians are up to on the hill. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cal said:

Politicians having sexual relations with their staff is the grossest misuse of power that goes uncalled out. It’s common, even among some of the state gov I’ve worked with, and no one really thinks all that badly of it. We had rules not to share that kind of information or gossip about what politicians are up to on the hill. 

@jvikings1 might know some about this with his work with KY gov. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Cal said:

@jvikings1 might know some about this with his work with KY gov. 

Our former speaker of the house got in trouble for sexual misconduct. Thankfully, Bevin made sure that he resigned as speaker, and he is now out of office (as of the 2020 election).

But it is certainly a bigger problem than people realize. Both sides (at least in KY) have their offenders, but no one (who can do anything that is) is really in the political mood to call them out for it.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Gingrich is on their exclusively for the hypocrisy aspect. I would not have included him if it occurred when he wasn’t prosecuting someone for the same thing he  did. Trying to cover up an affair. 

The impeachment was over Clinton's crimes (lying under oath about it), not the affair itself.

That doesn't excuse Gingrich's actions (which were terrible), but it is not the same thing as the reason for Clinton's impeachment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Patine said:

The problem is, as it stands, there are virtually no meaningful punishments or trials for crimes of state (as opposed to, say, sex offenses, conflict of interest crimes, etc.) committed by U.S. Federal Politicians or Government apparati really, at all, or any standing mechanism to enforce accountability and transparency. And anyone who could arrange such is on, "the gravy train." There is no truly impartial watchdog organization with binding power to monitor Government abuses and crimes. And THAT should be intolerable and unacceptable of a situation to the majority of Americans. I've seen some Americans, including several on this forum, defend the complete immunity from consequences, perceived inability to even be CONSIDERED POSSIBLY a criminal, the lack of any investigation or judicial review, or any possible trial or indictment, and even the transgressions and abuses themselves of U.S. politicians whose very crimes they would utterly excoriate and condemn vicious in OTHER nations' political leaders. Even other Americans who admit some consequences are in order (like yourself), are routinely ignored, even ridiculed and persecuted, and a lot of Americans try to actively avoid addressing or speaking on the issue. As it stands, it is NOT good at all, and if something ISN'T done, the regime of state crimes and the impunity they're committed, and the lack of consequences, will continue to perpetuate down the succession of the two parties that always win. It's a rock and a hard place, the Devil and the deep blue sea, @vcczar, and I'm not sure what compromise would best bring justice and a better, more ethical future for the U.S. Government.

You frequently call upon some kind of impartial watchdog organization, but that does not and cannot exist.  Even if you did manage to come up with a list of names that would truly be impartial (and who, exactly, do we trust to decide that?), they’d be denounced as being too biased by whoever they went against.

Faucci, for example, is as impartial as it gets (in my mind, at least).  He’s just informing us about science.  But science is apparently biased against Republicans, and so he’s vilified by half the nation.

The idea is dismissed because it’s based on a lie: that an impartial watchdog authority group can exist, without at least the appearance (and probably reality) of bias/corruption.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patine said:

So, practical and logistical problems means, "just chuck the idea and let the regime of high state crime, corruption, betrayal, and utter contempt for the supreme laws of the nation carry on unpunished, unindicted, unchecked, and unimpeded?" That's your solution, is it? You would have just been a hit during the heyday of the Mafia! 🙄

I mean, if we’re going to just solve problems through the use of magic, then I say we snap our fingers and make all the corrupt politicians disappear.  Hooray!  I fixed it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2021 at 7:48 PM, Patine said:

Watchmen are needed, more than ever. The crimes and abuses of power are growing greater and greater, with no check or consequences, and a creeping, insidious growing tyranny (as opposed to a rapidly evolving one) is the result, threatening the nation's Constitution and very status as, not just the Leader of the Free World, but actually PART of the Free World, in the long term.

Sure.  But...going right back to the line that you were responding to: who watches the watchmen to ensure they don’t become corrupt?

 

and then who watches the watchmen’s watchmen?

 

and then who watches them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2021 at 7:50 PM, Patine said:

I didn't say anything about magic, did I? There are obviously serious obstacles, but they MUST be overcome. Utter defeatism, and succumbing to the problem being allowed to continue with impunity, is FAR worse of an attitude than magical thinking, even if that WAS what I had been proposing.

You don’t like it when I point out that your proposals have no realistic use (at least; not in a way that would actually work to achieve your goals, and in some cases would make it worse).

Because you resent being held to the bounds of realism, I thought you were embracing magic.

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

On 9/16/2021 at 7:50 PM, Patine said:

There are obviously serious obstacles, but they MUST be overcome.

This is the gist of many of our responses to things you propose. You rarely give any solution as to how these can be overcome. You chronically call out a problem, but then offer little to no practical solution. It's almost like you are saying, "Americans! This is wrong. It should be this! Fix it!" When you should say something like, "Americans, I think you and the world would be better served if you fix this so it does this. I am aware of the following serious obstacles. I believe these must and can be overcome by doing this or something like this ---insert practical, can-do solution."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Patine said:

 

So, what I am gathering from these two responses is that if I, a legal laymen in a very limited framework of time and very limited resources, cannot produce a solution to these problems - which are very, indeed, very serious problems with downright monstrous long-term consequences if they continue to be ignored or marginalized in priority to address - than, by my PERSONAL lack of a solution means the problem is utterly insoluable, and can, and should, just be left to run it's course like the slow-acting poison it is.

This rhetorical and debate tactic - that is, the one bringing up the problem must immediately produce the solution, regardless of the qualifications of the one bringing it up or the realism of the demand - or shut up about the problem forever after, is a growing tactic I've noticed on many Internet forums in the last less than the decade - it's certainly not unique to this forum. But it is a completely disingenuous and diversionary tactic, without merit and only worthy of scorn, and it is utterly DEFEATIST in nature - in fact, it is a tactic that promotes what @Pringles calls a, "doom and gloom," mentality, in truth.

It’s that you don’t even try and I offer a solution to overcome the barriers. As @MrPotatoTed says it’s like you think complaining and wanting something fixed is enough to “magic” it away. Try to offer solutions to overcome the barriers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

I have tried, and actually been actively ridiculed over my attempts, in the past - especially by @MrPotatoTed. Where have you been?

Most of what you write are in massive blocks of text that I don’t attempt to read. Let me see what @MrPotatoTed can relay in records to your constructive, grounded solutions to the barriers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2021 at 7:34 PM, MrPotatoTed said:

 

Faucci, for example, is as impartial as it gets (in my mind, at least).  He’s just informing us about science.  But science is apparently biased against Republicans, and so he’s vilified by half the nation.

So why did he lie under oath to Congress about funding gain of function research in the Wuhan Lab?

And why does he continue to refuse to acknowledge natural immunity?

Edited by jvikings1
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.

×
×
  • Create New...