Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Besides, the fact that there have been people who did good things in public and did terrible things in their private lives...doesn't mean that there weren't people available who didn't do terrible things in their private lives, and could have done those same good things in public. And given the choice, I'd like to have the latter, thanks.
edited 6th Nov '16 1:08:00 PM by RBluefish
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."![]()
Bull. Someone who gets his jollies by exercising power over teenage girls is not someone we should be giving political power to. And that is directly related to the job he is seeking.
For the same reason I would not vote for someone convicted of domestic violence I would not vote for someone convicted of statutory rape. These are crimes that are about power dynamics. I'm not handing power to someone like that.
edited 6th Nov '16 1:10:42 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
That's heavily assuming he actively pressured the lady into the doing the deed.
edited 6th Nov '16 1:13:33 PM by nervmeister
@Ambar, sure but as we all know too well, morals are incredibly subjective. I'm not saying you can't factor in what you think to be morally reprehensible into your consideration of political matters, but when you talk about straight up regulating people's non-criminal behavior, that's another thing.
Sorry to say this but there are a lot of unhealthy relationships, I just don't think it's our place to say who can be together as long as nothing illegal is going on. Obviously the man in question is a criminal, but the broader issue still remains. What's to say that older people always have more power in a relationship? And that's not even talking about all the people who actually want to be subservient in a relationship.
@smokey, You can be a sex offender in America for peeing in public so the sex offender label itself is kind of misleading.
edited 6th Nov '16 1:17:09 PM by Mr.Didact
Stand Fast, Stand Strong, Stand TogetherUh, statutory rape is rape whether the victim is willing or not. There's a reason it's called "age of consent."
There's more to power than threats, intimidation, and use of force. There is a massive power differential between a man like this and a teenage girl. And that power cannot be divorced from the nature of the situation.
Half the point Ambar has been making is that this situation should never have arisen in the first place. This man should never have reached the point where he could be even faintly considered a reasonable choice.
edited 6th Nov '16 1:15:58 PM by RBluefish
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."@nervmeister
No it's not. She's seventeen. He's very much not. If you don't see the problems with the power dynamic there, then the problem is with your powers of perception.
I also really love how the second part of your response tries to imply there aren't candidates out there who aren't guilty of statutory rape. There are lots of candidates who aren't guilty of statutory rape. Even if you want to play the "everyone has skeletons in their closet" game, not all skeletons are the same. I'll take the guy who was caught shoplifting at fifteen over the guy busted for statutory rape in his forties or fifties.
@Mr. Didact
Yes, but this guy didn't take a leak in public, he screwed a seventeen year old employee. The sex offender label is well and truly earned.
edited 6th Nov '16 1:18:05 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
As per the linked article, the guy is also being accused of sexual harassment and has a habit of engaging in fist fights with political opponents.
So, it's not "just" the statutory rape.
Guy is a good illustration that Mr. Vice Guy isn't necessarily as cool in real life than it is in fiction.
Also, I don't know about the race nor whether nervmeister lives in Richmond and is basing his opinion on that, but there are other choices- there are several other people running in the election.
edited 6th Nov '16 1:21:10 PM by Hodor2
![]()
![]()
Still, if he never had any intention of using any kind of coercion (either explicit or implicit), then I wouldn't bet on it affecting the way he does business.
EDIT: ![]()
Oh damn. Well I suppose that's enough to cast him in some measure of doubt. Still wouldn't (automatically) be a dealbreaker though.
edited 6th Nov '16 1:23:01 PM by nervmeister
@Ambar, I don't dispute that the guy himself is a scumbag for all the reasons already stated. But if he had been in about half of the American states, he technically wouldn't have done anything illegal just by sleeping with the girl. The fact that you can be a sex offender for that in one state but a law abiding citizen in another is frankly bizarre as all get out. It should be a uniform age of consent across all states.
edited 6th Nov '16 1:24:20 PM by Mr.Didact
Stand Fast, Stand Strong, Stand Together
That it would be legal somewhere else doesn't change the fact that it was illegal where he did it. Nor does it mean it shouldn't be illegal everywhere else. Nor does it change the morally disgusting nature of it.
He screwed a teenage employee behind his wife's back. There's no scenario in which that's something I want in a public official—even if his actions were legal which they were not.
@nervmeister
Except that she's seventeen so it's automatically coercion. She does not have the legal ability to consent. And did you miss the part about this not being the first or last time he's been charged with sexual harassment? Because surprise, surprise, your average statutory rapist is a creeper in all respects, not just one.
Look, we all know that guy who, at twenty, had sex with a seventeen year old he thought was older and got in trouble for it. But this is not that guy. He's a much older, much more powerful man who had an extramarital illegal affair with a seventeen year old girl who worked in his office and has a string of charges and allegations of physical violence and sexual harassment that follow him around. He is exactly the kind of person the statutory rape laws and sex offender registry are there to deal with.
edited 6th Nov '16 1:26:25 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
I frankly don't give the smallest shit what his intentions may or may not have been. All of that stopped mattering the moment he decided "you know what would be good right here? I'm going to have sex with this child. That is what I need to do at this point in my life."
He intended to sleep with the teenager. That's the intention that matters. If he did so without being cognizant of the massive power difference, then that just means that he has abysmal judgement on top of everything else. Just what we need in a public official.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."It shouldn't be dismissed that people can work for good causes and still be terrible in other regards. I get why Ambar isn't willing to compromise on this, but I also get why other people, specifically the people in this guy's community whom he's actually worked with and helped, would be willing to look past it.
Like, there were a few articles detailing why the black community in the city can identify with the guy and his various troubles. As for whether that's right or wrong, that's a different story.
![]()
Maybe this comes off as pedantic, but it wouldn't be pedophilia. The distinction is important, I think. Seriously, if she had been one year older we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation because none of us would know about it.
edited 6th Nov '16 1:28:01 PM by LSBK
And I will state again, by the way, that something being legal does not mean it is moral and does not mean it is a trait I want in a public official.
It is perfectly legal for me to spend my entire day from sun up to sun down drunk out of my mind. That does not mean that my doing so shouldn't be of concern to people I'm inviting to vote for me.
![]()
![]()
Right. Legality does not equal morality. It would be legal for me to go around using racist and sexist slurs in everyday conversation, because I have the right to freedom of speech. It doesn't mean I wouldn't be a disgusting asshole for doing so.
Apparently not much of a price, considering the fact that we're having this conversation.
edited 6th Nov '16 1:29:53 PM by RBluefish
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."![]()
![]()
And should not be given more power.
![]()
And definitely shouldn't mean I should vote for you.
It is perfectly legal for David Duke to continue to run the Klan, since you've never gotten around to making it illegal. Does that mean anyone in the thread would want him getting elected? I rather doubt that.
edited 6th Nov '16 1:32:52 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

edited 6th Nov '16 1:10:11 PM by nervmeister