When is a sex scandal relevant?

[Kosh]

It's only relevant if the person in question is a democrat.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think getting caught and lying about it was disqualifying, too.

Lying under oath was to me far worse than enjoying a blowjob.

[Regina]

Never really, unless it's like a rape or assault

I don't care if a politician has cheated or is promiscuous, as long as it doesn't affect their work life. I agree with SC though, if they're then going to be on some "traditional marriage!" shit then they need to be called on on their hypocrisy.

[brewer]

I thought hypocrisy was a job requirement.

[GUBU]

I don't think it necessarily disqualifies anyone from office. I do think it should eliminate the authority of anyone from enforcing rules or preaching about morality or the sanctity of marriage.

Bragging about sexually assaulting women should disqualify a candidate for the "moral majority" party.

That sort of seems like saying that only Republicans are disqualified for sex stuff.

No it is not, unless you're under the impression that Republitraitors' only way of procreating is by force.

And that's where the line should be drawn, whether the sexual act was legally consentual or not (the reason I say legally is because you can get a 15 year old to agree to sex which ials beyond bounds). Clinton' sexual activity was consentual, Trump's, by his own confession was not.

[Chad32]

Generally I don't really care what they do in their private lives, as long as they aren't raping people. Bill gave us a deficit surplus, but everyone probably just remembers him as the guy that got a blow job. That seems like something between Hillary and Bill, that the general people should be as focused on, as they are about issues that actually effect their lives.

That's a fine point of view to have, so long as you think the same way about Trump's affairs.

I do. I don't care if he posed in a porno, or whatever. He's had worse ideas.

[vorlon13]

It seems to be just second nature to the scripture cherry pickers to give a pass to any reprobate that merely has to mouth some platitudes compatible with their mindset, regardless of how incongruous and outrageous it looks.

And the converse is just as galling too, someone of impeccable conduct (by their lights) is nevertheless damned in their eyes if they dare have a public policy thought outside of their comfort range.

That self described 'good little Catholic boy' Sean Hannity has nary a qualm about being a lickspittle to all manner of politicians who in their personal lives are leading, as the his pope would say, essentially disordered lives, on his fucking TV show all the fucking time. Yet he freely criticizes folks outside his political comfort zone all the time regardless if they are, by his own lights, vastly superior morally to the ilk and champions of cultural rot and moral decay he nevertheless parades before the rest of us as 'good' examples of how things ought to be.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, that's because Hannity is an assmuffin of colossal proportions.

[TheRealJoeFish]

"When is a sex scandal relevant?"

When lack of consent is an issue.

[Redoubtable]

I take a harsher line on this one than most I think. I feel like most people say as long as nothing illegal was done it shouldn't matter. But if a politician portrays themselves as a virtuous and faithful person who is into family values, and then gets caught screwing one of their staffers, then I think they should resign in disgrace.