Obama cheating scandal

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

still failing i see.

i'll just have to wonder what you feel obama is worth criticizing about.

You do that, Chuck. I hope you spend a lot of time "wondering" about that.

[CDAgirlMI 51]

Aw, and here I thought we were best buddies ever since I went shooting at the gun range.

By the way...have you gone back?

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

You do that, Chuck. I hope you spend a lot of time "wondering" about that.

why thank you, for your permission!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

why thank you, for your permission!

After that last word I see.

[SMR 368]

Now, if someone is accused of fraud, that's something much more pertinent and telling.

So, if a politician were to sign a contract and then secretly violate that contract (that would be considered fraud) that would be pertinent and telling? What if the contract was called a "marriage certificate" (which inspite of popular culture, typically implies a vow of fidelity) and the violation was called "an affair?" Actually, I thought that is what we are talking about.

Let me clarify that I don't think this article has any credibility. However, I think affairs by politicians are relevant for several reasons.

--First, it is fraud. It is violation of a vow that was taken. That is fraud. An affair indicates that the person has no qualms about lying to and deceiving people for even trivial reasons if he or she thinks no one will catch on. That isn't someone you can trust to run the country.

--Second, an affair creates a skeleton that could be used for leverage. Suppose a video does exist of Obama having an affair. A person may be able to get an awful lot for that video. Consider that, for instance, having an affair or even being suspected of such almost instantly disqualifies you from holding higher-level security clearances. You become too much of a blackmail risk. Why should that not be a factor when determining who should run the country?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Fraud involves monetary or material gain. Infidelity is not "fraud".

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Never heard of "Primae Noctis"? It is an old tradition.

Never heard of "Jus Primae Noctis"? It is an old tradition.

Never heard of "Jus Primae Noctis"? It is an old tradition.

Never heard of "Jus Primae Noctis"? It is an old tradition.

[Peikko 1,575]

So, if a politician were to sign a contract and then secretly violate that contract (that would be considered fraud) that would be pertinent and telling? What if the contract was called a "marriage certificate" (which inspite of popular culture, typically implies a vow of fidelity) and the violation was called "an affair?" Actually, I thought that is what we are talking about.

Let me clarify that I don't think this article has any credibility. However, I think affairs by politicians are relevant for several reasons.

--First, it is fraud. It is violation of a vow that was taken. That is fraud. An affair indicates that the person has no qualms about lying to and deceiving people for even trivial reasons if he or she thinks no one will catch on. That isn't someone you can trust to run the country.

--Second, an affair creates a skeleton that could be used for leverage. Suppose a video does exist of Obama having an affair. A person may be able to get an awful lot for that video. Consider that, for instance, having an affair or even being suspected of such almost instantly disqualifies you from holding higher-level security clearances. You become too much of a blackmail risk. Why should that not be a factor when determining who should run the country?

It's fraud now to cheat on your wife/husband? Talk about a creative use of language to perpetuate outrage.

No, cheating on a spouse is not fraud - it's many things but it's not that. Your attitude is ridiculous because essentially you are saying that people who have affairs simply can't be trusted in any aspect of life and clearly we know that is absolutely untrue. How people behave in emotionally charged relationships is completely different to how they behave in other walks of life and we all know this but again, if you believe that somehow tabloid news can give you the information you need to know to be sure that a politician is being honest in his marriage, have at it. Get upset, get outraged, and never vote for anyone who is suspected in the media of having behaved improperly. It's absurd, but many people are, why should you be different?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Fraud involves monetary or material gain. Infidelity is not "fraud".

Nor does what someone does in their personal life affect their ability in their professional life. It's only because people are under the impression that politicians and celebrities are somehow subject to different standards to everyone else.

Does an accountant who screws around become a bad accountant. Of course not. What about a doctor? Hmmm guess that would be a "no" as well.

[SMR 368]

It's fraud now to cheat on your wife/husband? Talk about a creative use of language to perpetuate outrage.

No, cheating on a spouse is not fraud - it's many things but it's not that. Your attitude is ridiculous because essentially you are saying that people who have affairs simply can't be trusted in any aspect of life and clearly we know that is absolutely untrue. How people behave in emotionally charged relationships is completely different to how they behave in other walks of life and we all know this but again, if you believe that somehow tabloid news can give you the information you need to know to be sure that a politician is being honest in his marriage, have at it. Get upset, get outraged, and never vote for anyone who is suspected in the media of having behaved improperly. It's absurd, but many people are, why should you be different?

How do we "clearly...know that is absolutely untrue?" "We all know this" is a really bad argument considering I just stated I disagree. I acknowledged that this is tabloid news and probably not reliable thus I don't think this is a discussion about Obama but rather about a hypothetical politician cheater.

Fraud involves monetary or material gain. Infidelity is not "fraud".

Nor does what someone does in their personal life affect their ability in their professional life. It's only because people are under the impression that politicians and celebrities are somehow subject to different standards to everyone else.

Does an accountant who screws around become a bad accountant. Of course not. What about a doctor? Hmmm guess that would be a "no" as well.

So, I looked it up and you're wrong. Fraud is "any deception, trickery, or humbug." I suppose if there was no attempt to hide the affair, it could be construed as not fraud. Signing a contract and then breaking that contract while attempting to provide the illusion to the other party that the contract is not being broken is fraud.

In terms of personal life not affecting professional life, you're right that it doesn't affect ability. And so long as you have no need to be able to trust the person, infidelity doesn't really matter. Does an accountant who screws around become a bad accountant? No. But if you are trying to find an accountant you can trust to not steal from you, I think it would be very helpful to know that he isn't faithful to his wife.

In regards to the doctor, the answer is the same. So long as the doctor has nothing to gain by hurting me, and odds are he doesn't, he can be trusted to do his best.

So, if you don't think that trustworthiness is an important quality for a politician, I can see your point. Otherwise, I don't know why you think the fact that a person is willing to lie to and deceive his family is irrelevant.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So, I looked it up and you're wrong. Fraud is "any deception, trickery, or humbug." I suppose if there was no attempt to hide the affair, it could be construed as not fraud. Signing a contract and then breaking that contract while attempting to provide the illusion to the other party that the contract is not being broken is fraud.

Where you go wrong (as with your "abortion is murder" rationale from the other day) is the contention that a term with a specifically legal application is interchangeable with that of a dictionary definition. It is not.

In terms of personal life not affecting professional life, you're right that it doesn't affect ability. And so long as you have no need to be able to trust the person, infidelity doesn't really matter. Does an accountant who screws around become a bad accountant? No. But if you are trying to find an accountant you can trust to not steal from you, I think it would be very helpful to know that he isn't faithful to his wife.

In regards to the doctor, the answer is the same. So long as the doctor has nothing to gain by hurting me, and odds are he doesn't, he can be trusted to do his best.

The point being... that you wouldn't know because a person's personal life is separate from their professional life.

Presumably individuals should go around disclosing their personal business to everyone they come into contact with. What a wacky world that would be.

"Now sir, are you really sure that you want me to cut your hair for you? Because last night I forgot my wife's birthday and she's got me sleeping on the couch. Clearly I am not a reliable individual!"

So, if you don't think that trustworthiness is an important quality for a politician, I can see your point. Otherwise, I don't know why you think the fact that a person is willing to lie to and deceive his family is irrelevant.

Is it a "fact" though. The only fact here is that you will never know the ins and outs of someone else's marriage - nor should you.

[Peikko 1,575]

Talk about a mad and irrational argument.

Still, there's no pleasing some folk, and they will continue to demand the oddest of standards from their politicians and then act all surprised when they don't live up to them, or appear not to because as has been pointed out, who knows what is the truth between a man and his wife?

I'll stick to choosing politicians based on what policies they put forward

Edited May 3, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

After that last word I see.

that's your forte, as i recall.

now get it, you know you want to.

[The_Dude 1,142]

that's your forte, as i recall.

now get it, you know you want to.

I thought mods weren't supposed to bait. Guess I was wrong.

[Peikko 1,575]

I thought mods weren't supposed to bait. Guess I was wrong.

It's ok so long as they do it outside of the forum that they moderate