450
'He’s got to pay': Chaos as Republican caught pantless in town hall refuses to resign (www.rawstory.com)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
80 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 6 months ago (5 children)

Reading the article, I think it's because the dude tried to use his mayoral power to delete the video. There's two lawsuits about it. That's probably why people still give a shit.

Also it's a small town, not much going on there

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Ah I didn't see that part. That does move beyond lying to cover up embarrassing sexual event to destruction of public property.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    I'm sure also people see it as paying money to help organize benefits for their area, and then when they asked what happened with their money they see dude getting shit faced drunk without pants on and using the excuse he vomited on himself off their money, in the building they paid to build... They think resigning is the respectable thing to do. Government jobs are supposed to be civil servants, not night clubs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

    Well that's a stupid take too. I do my job and my employer pays me. That money is now mine. What I do with that money within the bonds of the law is no one's fucking business. That goes for elected officials too. I don't care if the an official spends every spare dime of his money getting drunk on nights and weekends if he's still competently doing his job. Idk if he is competently doing his job, but I don't think this necessarily indicates that he's not either. And if getting drunk once is enough to indicate someone shouldn't hold office, that's bad news for nearly every American politician.

    If the line is drawn at the door of any goverment building especially one that's isn't currently open and doing business, that's strange too. They're not hollowed ground or holy sites. They're administrative buildings. People working there are people. They piss and shit in those buildings. They microwave fish. They spread their shitty fucking colds. If the very idea that someone may have had consenting sex in one of the rooms disturbs you, I would suggest you not go into any building ever. Someone has almost certainly been fucking there at some point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    Your view is that him getting shit faced drunk and all damages and injuries that occur should be covered by the public. We aren't his servants. If you want to do whatever you want, dont do it on the property where we will held liable. Also I agree it shouldn't matter who you fuck, but if it's a journalist/reporter, all subject matter pertaining to your position is now null and void. It's like fucking the health inspector, someone else needs to be doing the inspection then.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago*

    Your view is that him getting shit faced drunk and all damages and injuries that occur should be covered by the public.

    What damages? What injuries? What the hell are you talking about? If there were any, then of course those would be his responsibility. I saw no mention of anyone being hurt by him at all though.

    We aren't his servants.

    No shit? Who said otherwise?

    If you want to do whatever you want, dont do it on the property where we will held liable.

    Again, what are you talking about? Held liable for what?

    Also I agree it shouldn't matter who you fuck, but if it's a journalist/reporter, all subject matter pertaining to your position is now null and void.

    I'm really not sure what you mean by "subject matter pertaining to your position" or "null and void". Those words don't seem to mean anything at all in this context. But if your concern is that an elected official is having sex with a journalist, there's literally nothing wrong with that so long as it's not coercive (like to get/stop a story, for example). Elected officials are allowed to fuck and even marry journalists, my guy.

    It's like fucking the health inspector, someone else needs to be doing the inspection then.

    You're suggesting that this creates a conflict of interest, and it very well may. But that conflict is the journalist's who writes the stories, not the official's who is the subject of them. So I still don't see how this matters for his job at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent