Allegations Surface Against District 19 Candidate

[EagleWings]

Don't flatter yourself Jughad. I follow sometimes simply for "entertainment value".

I watch "When stupid people do stupid things" for the same reason.

[Beach Bum]

I watch "When stupid people do stupid things" for the same reason.

 

I haven't seen that one but I love to watch "Cops" for the entertainment value. I have to admit that I watch Family Guy too but that is only because I think Stewie is the coolest little baby ever and Brian is the coolest dog ever!

[joemturner]

You're using Gary Hart as an example? That was an ugly episode, but it's difficult to humor any suggestion that The Miami Herald was some bastion of conservative conspiracy. I think it's even odds that the take-down of Hart was done by democrat party insiders who wanted Hart out of the way of their own candidate's future. You'll have to take your grievances up with the Herald, I guess.

 

I think we'd agree that any candidate who, either while campaigning for an office or after election to office, chooses to engage in behaviors that reflect negatively on his/her character and judgment -- including infidelity or abuse of power -- deserves some degree of scrutiny and consequence, regardless of party affiliation. That goes for state representatives and US Senators. What the consequence may be is a matter to be decided by personal conscience in all cases, the law if applicable to the situation, and ultimately the electorate the next time the polls open.

 

Meanwhile -- in this topic, I think we mostly agree that a horrible breakdown in moral judgment by a teenager may not necessarily be reflective of their true character a decade later. That alone doesn't seem to be grounds to eliminate someone outright from a fair consideration as a candidate in an open election like this, at least in my view. I don't speak for anyone else.

[EagleWings]

I haven't seen that one but I love to watch "Cops" for the entertainment value. I have to admit that I watch Family Guy too but that is only because I think Stewie is the coolest little baby ever and Brian is the coolest dog ever!

It's the same show......

[Jughaid]

You're using Gary Hart as an example? That was an ugly episode, but it's difficult to humor any suggestion that The Miami Herald was some bastion of conservative conspiracy. I think it's odds-on likely that the take-down of Hart was done by democrat party insiders who wanted Hart out of the way of their own candidate's future. You'll have to take your grievances up with the Herald, I guess.

 

I think we'd agree that any candidate who, either while campaigning for an office or after election to office, chooses to engage in behaviors that reflect negatively on his/her character and judgment -- including infidelity or abuse of power -- deserves some degree of scrutiny and consequence, regardless of party affiliation. That goes for state representatives and US Senators. What the consequence may be is a matter to be decided by personal conscience in all cases, the law if applicable to the situation, and ultimately the electorate the next time the polls open.

 

Meanwhile -- in this topic, I think we mostly agree that a breakdown in moral judgment by a teenager may not necessarily be reflective of their true character a decade later. That alone doesn't seem to be grounds to eliminate someone from a fair consideration as a candidate, at least in my view. I don't speak for anyone else.

No we don't agree. I think that what a person does in the marriage is between the married people and none of anyone's business at all. The only reason it gets to be an issue is so it can call into question a person's judgement when that personal judgement is none of our business in the first place. We don't know what goes on behind those doors, what they fight about, what they agree on or what has happened to that relationship. None of our business. If they misuse the office like Richardson did, it is an issue. Newt's multiple transgressions? Who cares. John Edwards? Who cares. Clinton? Who cares/ That he lied under oath is a problem but not the cigar or the desk games. Kenndy? FDR? Any of them? Who cares? It is not a character flaw or a question of judgement because sometimes the best thing that can happen is for one of the partners to find somebody that really cares. Judgement? Character? I want to know who can do the best job and those are not issues/questions we allow employers to ask so we shouldn't ask it of candidates either.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Jughaid

[I'm Floored]

No we don't agree. I think that what a person does in the marriage is between the married people and none of anyone's business at all. The only reason it gets to be an issue is so it can call into question a person's judgement when that personal judgement is none of our business in the first place. We don't know what goes on behind those doors, what they fight about, what they agree on or what has happened to that relationship. None of our business. If they misuse the office like Richardson did, it is an issue. Newt's multiple transgressions? Who cares. John Edwards? Who cares. Clinton? Who cares/ That he lied under oath is a problem but not the cigar or the desk games. Kenndy? FDR? Any of them? Who cares? It is not a character flaw or a question of judgement because sometimes the best thing that can happen is for one of the partners to find somebody that really cares. Judgement? Character? I want to know who can do the best job and those are not issues/questions we allow employers to ask so we shouldn't ask it of candidates either.

 

Wow.

[EagleWings]

No we don't agree. I think that what a person does in the marriage is between the married people and none of anyone's business at all. The only reason it gets to be an issue is so it can call into question a person's judgement when that personal judgement is none of our business in the first place. We don't know what goes on behind those doors, what they fight about, what they agree on or what has happened to that relationship. None of our business. If they misuse the office like Richardson did, it is an issue. Newt's multiple transgressions? Who cares. John Edwards? Who cares. Clinton? Who cares/ That he lied under oath is a problem but not the cigar or the desk games. Kenndy? FDR? Any of them? Who cares? It is not a character flaw or a question of judgement because sometimes the best thing that can happen is for one of the partners to find somebody that really cares. Judgement? Character? I want to know who can do the best job and those are not issues/questions we allow employers to ask so we shouldn't ask it of candidates either.

I can see that "trust" "honesty" "integrity" "committed" or "faithful" really doesn't matter in politics to you. I NOW understand.

[Jughaid]

I can see that "trust" "honesty" "integrity" "committed" or "faithful" really doesn't matter in politics to you. I NOW understand.

I'm saying that you can't translate the issue to the job the person will do in the elected office. I see that if you want to make moral judgements about candidates. Would you want those same subjective moral judgements to be made by an employer about you and would you want to explain all those details about your relationship with your spouse every few years?

Edited February 21, 2010 by Jughaid

[joemturner]

No we don't agree. I think that what a person does in his marriage is between the married people and none of anyone's business at all.

 

I agree to a point, actually. But we're not talking about what a person does in his marriage -- we're talking about what he did/does outside his marriage. And once you show the poor judgment to open yourself up to disease, blackmail, etc. -- well, if abuse of power is wrong, then it seems like poor judgment to put yourself in a position where you could be blackmailed to abuse your office, even if the moral components of the question don't matter to you. A leader compromised by a personal secret he must keep to avoid being embarrassed or disgraced... that's a dangerous vulnerability.

 

I do think character matters and I think most people believe it matters. Personally, I see a difference between the character of a teenager who totally screwed up and admitted it and built something new and solid out of the wreckage... and the character of a grown adult who thinks they are immune from the consequences of betraying their family and a community who trusted them and their judgment. An affair ten years before you ever thought about public service and for which you've been forgiven by all parties seems a different offense to me than cheating on your family while actively engaged in trying to present yourself as a leader of people. And this is from someone who is not supporting Stout as a candidate, but finds this last minute mudslinging just despicable.

 

Good night, sleep tight... don't let the conservatives bite.

[Jughaid]

I agree to a point, actually. But we're not talking about what a person does in his marriage -- we're talking about what he did/does outside his marriage. And once you show the poor judgment to open yourself up to disease, blackmail, etc. -- well, if abuse of power is wrong, then it seems like poor judgment to put yourself in a position where you could be blackmailed to abuse your office, even if the moral components of the question don't matter to you. A leader compromised by a personal secret he must keep to avoid being embarrassed or disgraced... that's a dangerous vulnerability.

 

I do think character matters and I think most people believe it matters. Personally, I see a difference between the character of a teenager who totally screwed up and admitted it and built something new and solid out of the wreckage... and the character of a grown adult who thinks they are immune from the consequences of betraying their family and a community who trusted them and their judgment. An affair ten years before you ever thought about public service and for which you've been forgiven by all parties seems a different offense to me than cheating on your family while actively engaged in trying to present yourself as a leader of people. And this is from someone who is not supporting Stout as a candidate, but finds this last minute mudslinging just despicable.

 

Good night, sleep tight... don't let the conservatives bite.

It is HIS marriage, not your's. You are giving an all high sounding speech, but that is all pure bullcheeze. If those things didn't matter to the electorate, then the blackmail wouldn't be a problem. The only person it would matter to is the spouse and if that is the real problem, why bother with Ken Starr to begin with? Would you find it acceptable for every job applicant to be asked about affairs and how many sex partners there have been because someone may blackmail them into stealing from the company or doing something wrong?

 

You're making the ASSumption that it is a person's character that is in question. Wrong! Try again, kee mo sabi. Wreckage? How do you know the marriage was not already wrecked? And what of it? It is not your business. The people that get bent out of shape about are the people who want to claim moral high ground over everybody else to begin with. Leadership and what goes on in a marriage are two different things.

 

And this is from someone who is not supporting Stout as a candidate, but finds this last minute mudslinging just despicable.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Jughaid

[EagleWings]

I'm saying that you can't translate the issue to the job the person will do in the elected office. I see that if you want to make moral judgements about candidates. Would you want those same subjective moral judgements to be made by an employer about you and would you want to explain all those details about your relationship with your spouse every few years?

Folks can and do judge me all the time. I don't mind. The only think I will defend is a wrong judgment. I don't put myself in those situations and I expect others to do the same. If they fail, I will look at the apology for sincerity and make a judgment from there. I won't use it as as a "weapon" against them; instead, I use it as "protection" for me and my family.

[joemturner]

> Leadership and what goes on in a marriage are two different things.

 

I respectfully disagree that the two are completely mutually exclusive. I think the question of commitment is a common thread in both. I also think it's certainly no more morally high and mighty of me to consider that point of view reasonable than it is morally high and mighty of you to tell me it's most certainly not.

 

P.S. You said "bullcheeze." You are adorable.

 

Nighty night.

[Jughaid]

Folks can and do judge me all the time. I don't mind. The only think I will defend is a wrong judgment. I don't put myself in those situations and I expect others to do the same. If they fail, I will look at the apology for sincerity and make a judgment from there. I won't use it as as a "weapon" against them; instead, I use it as "protection" for me and my family.

Surrrrrre. If your wife up and left you, would you want to have to explain all the sordid details of your situation to your boss and any future employers?

[EagleWings]

Surrrrrre. If your wife up and left you, would you want to have to explain all the sordid details of your situation to your boss and any future employers?

If it affected how I performed on the job, then yes. They hired me for 100% not 40%. If I'm not getting then they may have an argument to ask why.

[Jughaid]

> Leadership and what goes on in a marriage are two different things.

 

I respectfully disagree that the two are completely mutually exclusive. I think the question of commitment is a common thread in both. I also think it's certainly no more morally high and mighty of me to consider that point of view reasonable than it is morally high and mighty of you to tell me it's most certainly not.

 

P.S. You said "bullcheeze." You are adorable.

 

Nighty night.

Yeah. We disagree. It is not my business what goes on in anybody's marriage but my own.

 

If it affected how I performed on the job, then yes. They hired me for 100% not 40%. If I'm not getting then they may have an argument to ask why.

Job performance is the issue! If you're only giving 40% then you should be judged based on that performance. The reason is irrelevant. Judge the guy based on what he does in office or his qualifications for the office, not how well his relationship is going.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Jughaid

[EagleWings]

Yeah. We disagree. It is not my business what goes on in anybody's marriage but my own.

 

 

Job performance is the issue! If you're only giving 40% then you should be judged based on that performance. The reason is irrelevant.

Not in my book. Morality is a big part of people I put faith and trust in. If they are willing to cheat on a "sacred" relationship, then that means something to me. As I said earlier, I will look at the apology and move on from there.

[gpatt0n]

Being a voter is like being a juror.

 

You are the sole arbiter of why you vote for someone.

 

It was said, for instance, that it was Jack Kennedy's charisma that brought the women to the polls and voted him into office.

 

The feeling that someone like Jack Kennedy 'could be had' may have been part of that charisma but had it been known he was able to be had or even pursued those like Marilyn Monroe probably would have iced his candidacy.

 

Voters are able to judge candidates on whatever criteria they choose from whether they are "hot" like Sarah Palin, Sen. Brown or Jack Kennedy or whether they are brainy like Adlai Stevenson, Bill Fulbright or Barak Obama.

 

As I stated in my first statement, this particular issue was destined to come out if Mr. Stout were to be a candidate in July and I didn't like the timing of this revelation at this time.

 

Should it be an issue? I tend to side with jughaid that personally it would not be an issue for me if a person had a messy divorce. The greater reality is that this kind of personal issue is just the type of so-called character issue that will influence a significant percentage of voters.

 

That said, I'm not an elector in the 19th House District and so I don't have a vote. I think most folks recognize that of the three candidates running, politically, Mr. Stout would not have been my choice. That said, he seems a pleasant, affable and even likable fellow and I personally feel bad that this came out, although it is inevitable it would.

 

Further, despite my aversion to this being the type of issue voters should hinge their judgment, I do recognize that many do and that their judgment over how they cast their vote is their sovereign right - So as to the debate of its importance, both JMT and JH are right ... because they both have the right to decide whether it is important or not.

 

pubby

[Jughaid]

Not in my book. Morality is a big part of people I put faith and trust in. If they are willing to cheat on a "sacred" relationship, then that means something to me. As I said earlier, I will look at the apology and move on from there.

So you are imposing your religious ideas on candidates now? What if the candidate is not a christian to view that marriage as "sacred" at all?

[EagleWings]

So you are imposing your religious ideas on candidates now? What if the candidate is not a christian to view that marriage as "sacred" at all?

Are you that dense? If a candidate doesn't hold my ideals, then I don't vote for them. As a citizen here in America, I can impose ANY and ALL ideas on any candidate I choose. Just like every other voter does for their candidate. I can't believe you would ask such a stupid question.

[Jughaid]

Are you that dense? If a candidate doesn't hold my ideals, then I don't vote for them. As a citizen here in America, I can impose ANY and ALL ideas on any candidate I choose. Just like every other voter does for their candidate. I can't believe you would ask such a stupid question.

Now I understand where you are coming from.

 

Do you think it is acceptable to impose that same standard on law enforcement? Should their marriage be a question we should ask them about? How about our military leaders? Do we ask about their sexual past? If you're going to impose that standard on a candidate for public service, why don't you put it on other public servants? If it's good for the goose it is good for the gander, right?

 

As a citizen here in America, I can impose ANY and ALL ideas on any candidate I choose. Even the ideas that are not fair. Gotcha.

[Jughaid]

I agree to a point, actually. But we're not talking about what a person does in his marriage -- we're talking about what he did/does outside his marriage. And once you show the poor judgment to open yourself up to disease, blackmail, etc. -- well, if abuse of power is wrong, then it seems like poor judgment to put yourself in a position where you could be blackmailed to abuse your office, even if the moral components of the question don't matter to you. A leader compromised by a personal secret he must keep to avoid being embarrassed or disgraced... that's a dangerous vulnerability.

 

I do think character matters and I think most people believe it matters. Personally, I see a difference between the character of a teenager who totally screwed up and admitted it and built something new and solid out of the wreckage... and the character of a grown adult who thinks they are immune from the consequences of betraying their family and a community who trusted them and their judgment. An affair ten years before you ever thought about public service and for which you've been forgiven by all parties seems a different offense to me than cheating on your family while actively engaged in trying to present yourself as a leader of people. And this is from someone who is not supporting Stout as a candidate, but finds this last minute mudslinging just despicable.

 

Good night, sleep tight... don't let the conservatives bite.

 

That standard of "personal secrets" to avoid blackmail is applied to military leaders and law enforcement too? Should the marriage be part of the inerview proces? If you're going to apply it to one governemnt servant why don't you apply it to all of them?

 

Specifically, how about doctors or nurses? I am especially interested in what you say about teachers and what should happen to them?

Edited February 21, 2010 by Jughaid

[EagleWings]

Now I understand where you are coming from.

 

Do you think it is acceptable to impose that same standard on law enforcement? Should their marriage be a question we should ask them about? How about our military leaders? Do we ask about their sexual past? If you're going to impose that standard on a candidate for public service, why don't you put it on other public servants? If it's good for the goose it is good for the gander, right?

 

As a citizen here in America, I can impose ANY and ALL ideas on any candidate I choose. Even the ideas that are not fair. Gotcha.

The folks I vote for to represent me, means just that. They represent me. Why would I vote for someone that doesn't represent what I believe? You keep responding in the manner you do, because everyone can see how "out there" you really are. Even people with no moral values who vote for people with no moral values are still voting for people with the same values. It is a universal standard.

[NewsJunky]

Now I understand where you are coming from.

 

Do you think it is acceptable to impose that same standard on law enforcement? Should their marriage be a question we should ask them about? How about our military leaders? Do we ask about their sexual past? If you're going to impose that standard on a candidate for public service, why don't you put it on other public servants? If it's good for the goose it is good for the gander, right?

 

As a citizen here in America, I can impose ANY and ALL ideas on any candidate I choose. Even the ideas that are not fair. Gotcha.

 

 

Maybe a better question is "Do they honor their contracts". Marriage is a contract under the law. At what age someone should be able to enter a contract is another question

altogether. I am just stating this and am not taking part in any judgement on this board of anyone. In some of those professions you mention I do believe the question of honoring contracts is relevent. I want the folks I vote for to honor their word and the contract I feel they have made with the voter (citizens) when they raise their hand and are sworn in.

[Jughaid]

Maybe a better question is "Do they honor their contracts". Marriage is a contract under the law. At what age someone should be able to enter a contract is another question

altogether. I am just stating this and am not taking part in any judgement on this board of anyone. In some of those professions you mention I do believe the question of honoring contracts is relevent. I want the folks I vote for to honor their word and the contract I feel they have made with the voter (citizens) when they raise their hand and are sworn in.

Do youo ask your doctor about his marriage and sexual escapades before you use him or her?

 

The folks I vote for to represent me, means just that. They represent me. Why would I vote for someone that doesn't represent what I believe? You keep responding in the manner you do, because everyone can see how "out there" you really are. Even people with no moral values who vote for people with no moral values are still voting for people with the same values. It is a universal standard.

If teh majority of the people want a leader and they should be allowed to have that leader and there be no outside interference. Is that right?

[LPPT]

Well! no politician in this county has to be worried about being turned out on here.

Yall are to busy going at each other.

 

I am so sorry folks but I am getting a chuckle out of this thread.

[EagleWings]

Do youo ask your doctor about his marriage and sexual escapades before you use him or her?

 

 

Do you ask your spouse the same questions?

 

You are trying to impose your morality on us. Why is that ok if it isn't ok for us to do the same?

[NewsJunky]

Do youo ask your doctor about his marriage and sexual escapades before you use him or her?

 

 

No but I do check their record for Malpractice Law Suits and to find out where they got their Medical Degree. I feel that I enter into a contract with my Doctors implying that they will do their best to heal me and not kill me. I want to know that they got a degree to try healing me from a school that is a good one too. LPPT I am so glad you are enjoying this thread!

[Lady Raider]

what was this topic about?

[MeWhoElse]

what was this topic about?

 

[NewsJunky]

what was this topic about?

 

I don't know? Wasn't it about contracts with doctors? Jughaid said so! Maybe it was about whether your doctor was guilty of sex. Oh well!!

 

Sorry LTD, this is a serious topic and I will let folks get back to the real discussion.

[Cabe]

I don't know? Wasn't it about contracts with doctors? Jughaid said so! Maybe it was about whether your doctor was guilty of sex. Oh well!!

 

My doctor has sex?!?!?!?! NO! say it ain't so!

[Lady Raider]

ok that is a scarey thought I will have to tell my doctor that we had a topic on here about them having sex..

[NewsJunky]

My doctor has sex?!?!?!?! NO! say it ain't so!

 

[gpatt0n]

It is not sex, per se, that is the topic, but sex with more than one partner.

 

I'm sure some doctors are guilty but it the mass screwing possible by our elected representatives that is the real issue. Of course the topic's issue is whether screwing around a decade ago would translate into the more massive screwing for which politicians are known.

 

pubby

[LPPT]

It is not sex, per se, that is the topic, but sex with more than one partner.

 

I'm sure some doctors are guilty but it the mass screwing possible by our elected representatives that is the real issue. Of course the topic's issue is whether screwing around a decade ago would translate into the more massive screwing for which politicians are known.

 

pubby

 

:rofl: :rofl:

[Lady Raider]

It is not sex, per se, that is the topic, but sex with more than one partner.

 

I'm sure some doctors are guilty but it the mass screwing possible by our elected representatives that is the real issue. Of course the topic's issue is whether screwing around a decade ago would translate into the more massive screwing for which politicians are known.

 

pubby

 

 

[Cabe]

It is not sex, per se, that is the topic, but sex with more than one partner.

 

I'm sure some doctors are guilty but it the mass screwing possible by our elected representatives that is the real issue. Of course the topic's issue is whether screwing around a decade ago would translate into the more massive screwing for which politicians are known.

 

pubby

 

Fact of the matter is that the majority of them are already into massive screwing. Whether it be multiple partners or the taxpayers en masse.

[NewsJunky]

It is not sex, per se, that is the topic, but sex with more than one partner.

 

I'm sure some doctors are guilty but it the mass screwing possible by our elected representatives that is the real issue. Of course the topic's issue is whether screwing around a decade ago would translate into the more massive screwing for which politicians are known.

 

pubby

You do have a way with words Pubby!

[NewsJunky]

Fact of the matter is that the majority of them are already into massive screwing. Whether it be multiple partners or the taxpayers en masse.

 

That is why this discussion is an important one. To be known as honest and trustworthy Political parties and Politicians are going to have to prove to the Citizens that they are not doing what Pubby suggests here! JMO

[Cabe]

That is why this discussion is an important one. To be known as honest and trustworthy Political parties and Politicians are going to have to prove to the Citizens that they are not doing what Pubby suggests here! JMO

 

Exactly!

 

Back to the topic at hand, I had already said I had no intention of voting for Mr. Stout. I knew he was divorced, but had no idea of the details, and did not ask because of the amount of time that had passed. I have completely other issues with Mr. Stout.

 

What'd I really hate to see is this one issue being blamed as the sole reason he's not elected (if he's not). I'm not sure that many people will make this a driving issue. I do respect his being honest and forthcoming.