I wonder if my wife would consider eating a bag of dicks “cheating”.
7 Likes
A Republican Party candidate from Virginia has admitted that he ‘borrowed’ his friend’s wife and children to pose with him for a ‘family photo’, which was later circulated by the National Republican Congressional Committee as part of the campaign.
Derrick Anderson, GOP’s House candidate from Virginia’s 7th district, posted a photo of himself with a woman and children which appears to be a family photo. In another photo, Anderson can be seen with the same group of people sitting in a dining space.
However, Anderson, who is engaged as per his campaign, does not have a wife or children. His website states that he lives alone with his dog.
2 Likes
Psychopathic behavior. This guy probably has all kinds of skeletons in his closet.
Probably wouldn’t stop me from voting for Harris, actually, wouldn’t be close to costing me my vote. Pragmatically, David Duke being in office is worse than a democrat that cheated on their spouse. It gets to be more interesting if the difference in the candidates isn’t so stark. I can’t think of a moderate republican that would make it that interesting, but if the choice was closer, or in a primary or something, I could see it making the difference. It is one of those things that is only important if someone asks about it, but it isn’t the lens I view everyday activity through.
2 Likes
Typical cheater
Ok, bad example.
Perhaps a better one. If you had the choice between young Bernie (or whoever else is your all-time favorite presidential candidate, real or potential) and Biden, and you found out Bernie cheated on an ex in college - would you vote for Biden?
Personally I gotta agree with Clovis here. I would never not vote for a politician because they cheated once, obviously depending on circumstances. The same would go for other minor crimes and bad behavior.
1 Like
I don’t think anyone means that literally. See Kerowo’s post above.
Agree that that would be a reasonable assumption. However, this post is pretty black and white imo:
Edit: fair if he didn’t mean it as absolute ofc, just sounds that way to me.
And in general it’s obvious some posters have higher moral standards for their politicians than I and Clovis do.
So was this one
And look where we ended up:
In our lifetime it was disqualifying for public office. Gary Hart comes to mind. I’m alright with that. Lots of things were disqualifying for public office before Trump and I’m probably alright with most of that coming back.
That being said, I hate one issue voters like Clovis likes fracking, so it would have to be a special case before I didn’t vote for someone only because of cheating.
1 Like
Two different things: You’re in office and caught cheating on your wife is different than someone running for office and found to have cheated on their wife.
One is handled through existing laws, mores, and procedure. The other is handled by the decisions of individual voters. (given current laws, mores, and procedures)
If the Democratic Party secretly disqualified anyone who had cheated on their spouse from entering primaries, would their overall quality of candidate improve? Assume perfect information and “cheating” requires a significant betrayal of the spouse.
- Much better
- A little better
- The same or worse
0
voters
Depends on whether you swallow.
Hey-o!
I voted much better but it depends on what you mean by candidate quality. People who cheat on their spouses will on average be better bullshitters, and that is an asset on the campaign trail. But if candidate quality refers to someone who will be a principled actor when elected, it’s not close ime.
1 Like
This is completely fair. That’s no fun 
1 Like
Sounds like a process that would be ripe for abuse. Like agreeing on “significant” would probably be impossible. Should it matter if it happened 30 years ago?
It’s reasonable. Like all internet debate everyone starts out militant and then normal discussion reveals there is nuance.
It’s not that I have low moral standards for politicians it’s that I strongly believe in judging people based on how we know humans act instead of idealized standards drawn from religious doctrine or other silly social norms.
I know you are joking but I obviously don’t love fracking. Also agree one issue voting is the most intellectually lazy position imaginable.
Now that we have moved to the nuanced stage of this discussion let me ask this. Couple is together for a couple decades. He gets a debilitating illness that eliminates his sex drive but he also buys into the idea that cheating is some massive moral sin. They love each other and he needs her for daily support due to his illness. She still has a sex drive and decides the only logical choice is to cheat to satisfy her need for sex because she doesn’t want to leave him.
This is a moral failing? Should she go without sex for life? Leave him?
This is why I think the idea that someone cheated is a crazy political filter because we have no idea what the situation is in another persons relationship.
All this said generally speaking, obviously cheating is bad and in most cases it’s far better to negotiate an open relationship than to cheat but like all things in life it’s just not black and white.
1 Like
Wouldn’t make a difference to me.
As for Robinson, the grossness of the posts isn’t the point. It’s that he’s posting on porn forums in the first place. I mean it isn’t quite as bad as 8chan or KiwiFarms but a person with his judgment shouldn’t be running anything.
1 Like
Man, you make one post about piss play with your sister in law and people will just forget you declared yourself a Nazi and said you wanted to own slaves.
10 Likes