Jump to content

Are You OK Voting for a Corrupt Scumbag?


Pong Messiah
 Share

Recommended Posts

This guy I know informed me the other day that he really, really hopes Hillary Clinton ends up going to jail, or that her "ethics problems" at least force her to bow out of the election.

 

He says he's always felt that she and her husband are corrupt, and possibly even sociopaths. He obviously really dislikes them.

 

Fine with me. Lots of people feel that way, not all of them Fox News viewers.

 

But to me, the kicker was that he mostly wants her out of the picture so he "doesn't have to vote for her in 2016," which is really kind of offensive to me. It tells me he will vote for somebody he considers corrupt and sociopathic, someone who might even belong in jail just because she's a Democrat.

 

Now, I understand the thinking behind "just hold your nose and vote." I did that with Clinton in 1996 (rabid Republicans), Bush in 2004 (hated Kerry/Edwards), and with Obama in 2008 (hated Palin and McCain was seeming more senile by the day). I'm sure you've done it, too. But I also can't imagine voting for somebody you honestly consider downright criminal just because they play for your team, and I don't think most of you would do it, either.

 

Two party system: sometimes we don't even care who we put up, cause we're still gonna get at least 40% of the vote regardless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider most politicians beyond the local level to be corrupt scumbags, and many at the local level are as well. So to a certain degree, I have to be okay with voting for them.

 

But someone who's a criminal? No. Not unless they're running against someone who wants to murder me or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I mean....they're all sociopaths.

 

I'm sure most are criminals, but lawyers tend to get away with breaking the law more than most normal people. Most politicians are charismatic, psychopath lawyers.

 

However, I'd vote for whoever can do the best job, regardless of what they've done in the past. Newt Gingrich is a shitty person, but I preferred him over Romney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno.

 

Regardless of my feelings about these men as presidents, I can remember aspects of Ford, Carter, Reagan, and H.W. that said to me "Hey guy, I'm not a complete sociopath. I actually care about people outside of myself."

 

That isn't to say politicians and lawyers aren't weaselly shit-eaters in general, but being full-on sociopaths/criminals might be taking it a bit too far.

 

It's kind like saying all cops are authoritarian douchebags -- a generalization that can be backed up and makes sense when you consider the type of people attracted to police work, but one that doesn't truly hold up if you actually know a few cops in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair point, Pong. Clinton is probably the only true sociopath President that has occurred during my life (30 years). Reagan, HW, Obama, even Dubya had good intentions. Clinton was the more peaceful president of the bunch, but his personal character was terrible. A superior that habitually took advantage of subordinates, sexually, is pretty despicable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they sociopaths or psychopaths? I'm not clear on the distinction, or whether there really is a distinction, but I do recall reading a psychology article about the need for a little psychopathy in leaders for them to be successful. What kind of normal, psychologically healthy person would want to lead other humans at all, much less the free world? Pompous know-it-alls with a vision would, and probably would generally excel at it. Active criminals, though? No. I don't think I could vote for a proven criminal. I'd vote for myself instead. No indictments - yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

This guy I know informed me the other day that he really, really hopes Hillary Clinton ends up going to jail, or that her "ethics problems" at least force her to bow out of the election.

 

He says he's always felt that she and her husband are corrupt, and possibly even sociopaths. He obviously really dislikes them.

 

Fine with me. Lots of people feel that way, not all of them Fox News viewers.

 

But to me, the kicker was that he mostly wants her out of the picture so he "doesn't have to vote for her in 2016," which is really kind of offensive to me. It tells me he will vote for somebody he considers corrupt and sociopathic, someone who might even belong in jail just because she's a Democrat.

 

Now, I understand the thinking behind "just hold your nose and vote." I did that with Clinton in 1996 (rabid Republicans), Bush in 2004 (hated Kerry/Edwards), and with Obama in 2008 (hated Palin and McCain was seeming more senile by the day). I'm sure you've done it, too. But I also can't imagine voting for somebody you honestly consider downright criminal just because they play for your team, and I don't think most of you would do it, either.

 

Two party system: sometimes we don't even care who we put up, cause we're still gonna get at least 40% of the vote regardless!

I'm kind of tired right now, and will look for it online later, but just the other day I heard on the news about a poll that was taken very recently that was sort of related to this. In it, basically something like 70% of all voters polled stated Hillary Clinton was not trustworthy, yet in the same poll answered by the same people, HC also beats every GOP candidate currently or hypothetically listed as running. Basically, stating that a majority knows HC is a corrupt scum bag, but will vote for her, anyway.

 

I know it is the popular and flip thing to say all politicians are scum bags, but honestly, I can't point to one that actually wasn't, and I am being serious here. Even the ones Foz cites, and some actually on the surface appear correct. However, Reagan himself may not necessarily been corrupt but he was surrounded by corruption, like the Iran Contra and S&L scandals. Which means, he either was in on it, or too stupid to see it, and I am not sure which is worse.

 

The Bushes may have seemed incorruptible to some, but say hello to political dynasty, and without getting into all the scandals during both administrations (IE Iran Contra, S&L for elder Bush, both had Cheney in their admins, the younger had the Karl Rove and Jack Abramoff scandals, Enron on his watch, manipulation of intelligence to support the Iraq invasion, etc), I am sure the Bush didn't make their billions and make it to the presidency not screwing someone along the way.

 

Ford seemed a pretty honest guy, in fact was appointed VP before Nixon resigned because of his work on the Warren Commission, but then he went ahead and pardoned Nixon, and still was surrounded by a lot of the same people during the Nixon admin, including Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

 

Carter may have been relatively honest, but he was an incompetent, which kind of gives one a choice of either someone competent but crooked, or someone like Carter who might be an honest one, but a dolt when it came to foreign policy.

 

So given all that, I guess it is hard to point to any single politician and cite one that isn't corrupt, either personally, or by association. I think being a politician takes a certain amount of active narcissism, political acumen, and charisma (which is the art of skillfully lying in front of a crowd or camera). In the end, it really kind of comes down to not who are we going to vote for who is honest, or even the lesser of two evils, but who is smart enough to have not been caught for corruption, and sometimes a lot of people don't even care when they are caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. This is probably the year I finally vote independent. I admit to voting for Bill but mostly because I feel you should be able to screw a fat intern and smoke a cigar as president and it irritated me we were wasting time on impeaching him for this in the 90s. Hillary I would not vote for. My cats don't even like her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just thinking about this last night. As evidence of scummery mounts against the Clintons, I'm now wary of voting for her/ I don't know that I CAN now, but I'm certainly not voting for a Republican.

I think this is really the crux of it. It's less a matter of really liking Hillary and more a matter of not trusting a GOP that's become associated with extremists and nut jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why there should be no political parties in America. Too many people are so politicized and indoctrinated with democrat and republican platform issues that we cannot pick a good logical choice anymore. We the people are stuck with what these two parties produce and find with pac's and super pac's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why there should be no political parties in America. Too many people are so politicized and indoctrinated with democrat and republican platform issues that we cannot pick a good logical choice anymore. We the people are stuck with what these two parties produce and find with pac's and super pac's.

11193366_10152403942137465_3711479648957

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.