|
|
|
Meh....sex scandals don't seem to produce as much bang here in Canada as they do in the US. I think it's mostly the hypocracy thing. There's so much railing in the US against sexual promiscuity that when a politician is found out they tend to get blasted for it. Conversely, corruption seems to be a much bigger deal up here than down south where it's practically expected.
At this point, I don't think the substance matters. What matters is that the Mayor was (allegedly) engaged in drug use while hanging out with drug dealers -- even if he didn't use anything, he's consorting with the very people he professes to despise. And then there are all his (alleged) comments as well.
I never understood sex scandals. Why should we care who is having sex with who?
Devil's advocate - let's say we pay this drug dealer the 200K and he goes and buys a bad load of heroin and a bunch of people OD? Or buys a shipment of guns which are traced to the killings of innocent civilians during a gang shootout. It might be tough to track the direct relation of the two, but when you think of it in this light it's hard to justify paying drug dealers. Everyone's saying it's for the greater good. But what if the cost is 200K plus 1 innocent civilian's death? Is that still worth it?
js97:
Instead of having the mayor - with substantial influence, power, access to resources - consorting with crack dealers and/or being beholden by them, knowingly or unknowingly?
You could do the exact same speculation with almost anything. What if I take a vacation in Mexico and the resort has connections to the drug trade and the maids have all been trafficked? And so on.
picard102:
Or have Toronto plastered over the front page world media. Look to your namesake - what would Picard have done?
"You're a Starfleet officer. You have a duty."
Unless you are saying leadership and duty are no longer something the chief magistrate of the city should strive for, that is.
AoD
In theory, you don't know you're taking a vacation in a resort owned by the mob. Here, we're knowingly paying drug dealers.
js97:
Instead of having the mayor - with substantial influence, power, access to resources - consorting with crack dealers and/or being beholden by them, knowingly or unknowingly?
Not really, I for one couldn't give a damn about those - particularly when a) there is no criminality and b) there aren't any blantant hypocracy.
AoD
I'd be curious to see who the donors are.
My one concern is that each of these donors are complicit in contributing to a criminal organization/drug dealer, for political change? Bit of an ethical dilemma.
I don't really see how the video will change anything.
In my opinion, the entire fundraising scheme is nothing but mean spirited vengeance by an angry and irrational mob coupled with monolithic opportunism by Gwaker media. Transacting with a purported drug dealer, to the tune of $200,000 not only smacks of legitimizing a purported criminal but is the height of hypocracy. Not to mention awful karma for the people of Toronto. I acknowledge readily that the karmic train is being navigated by the mayor's bad judgment but by indulging the purported criminals in their illicit activities the people are worsening his actions, not erasing them.
I would be more than satisfied with a truthful admission by the mayor followed by a brief leave of absence as I suspec would the general population.
Well, I think most of us have already accepted it as a fact, and the anti-ford crowd doesn't really need the video to 'dislike' him more. This is simply a twisted and quite frankly, petty and childish process to somehow vindicate a bunch of very small minded people.
So that's why I think paying 200k, or whatever sum of money to a bunch of lowly thugs that will use those resources to further crime is poor judgment by most of those individuals.