I doubt he wore a mask and threw smokebombs.
Right. But inciting a riot while attacking people with a whip?
Do go on.
Emergency diversion procedure, huh?
no, don't go on.
stop with this off topic bullshit, either start a thread on that subject or quit posting in this thread.
this thread is about embattled, lying and cheating AL governor Robert Bentley.
They'll forgive him. immoral republican politicians are far, far, far better than equally immoral dems in every single republican's mind.
hell, this guy will probably have a cabinet position within the year.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
My point is that there's a list of sleazy Democrats as long as your sleazy list of Republicans. Infidelity exists in all classes for a multitude of reasons, but politicians should be held to a higher moral standard, so once again he should resign or be ousted.
first: tell me how Maher supports pedophilia
second: show me where Maher has been elected, much less run, to public office.
the impeachment report is out...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/i...is-wife-he-did-not-do-it-well/article/2619743
Governor Bentley was pretty brazen with his little hussy.
The report states that "concerned that those recordings could become public, Governor Bentley directed law enforcement officers to perform tasks that had no law enforcement justification."
- "As of March 2014, Ms. Bentley had made recordings that captured her husband, Governor Bentley, expressing both his passionate love for Mason and describing in detail the pleasure he drew from fondling her breasts."
"For example, Governor Bentley directed law enforcement officers to (1) end his relationship with Mason on his behalf; (2) drive to Tuscaloosa to recover a copy of the recordings from his son; (3) drive to Greenville to confront a longtime public servant about whether she had a copy of the recordings; and (4) investigate who had a copy of the recordings and identify potential crimes with which they could be charged," the report alleges.
With all these anecdotes being thrown around, I wondered if there is a partisan trend in American sex scandals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States
Wiki has a list of federal sex scandals. If measured since 1990, there are 29 sex scandals involving republicans and 12 involving democrats. I'm actually surprised. I expected the numbers to be roughly equal. This, of course, is only sex scandals.
For a list of all scandals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States
Have at it. There's a LOT of them. I haven't counted, but I'm seeing more R's than D's here as well. This disparity, however, seems to be a recent phenomenon. If you go much further back, there was a time when it was more even.
Probably because the parties did a 180. These kind of "moral and totally not-racist southern gentleman" that own the GOP today were the very same ilk that controlled the Democratic party prior to LBJ. But then, when you look at the democrats, you have to consider the hilarious outliers that are Chicago and NYC democratic strongholds. It would be hard for any political party of any era (OK, New Orleans, of course), to match the corruption levels of Chicago politics, which are historically a Democratic stronghold.
Couple of things. I remember hearing on NPR about just the opposite that corruption in rural areas is higher due to lack of reporting and absence of competing interests. You can have a town where a sheriff or mayor runs things and does things his "way" and people have little legal recourse because these things go unreported and you end up having to fight the battle alone against an otherwise powerful individual. In fact, I remember hearing about a speed trap town in rural florida that ended up in a huge legal conflict over their illegal practices for years that were finally caught on tape by an out of towner (basically scamming people just driving through into fraudulent speeding tickets to give the police department a huge slush fund).Corruption is usually higher in urban areas as opposed to suburban or rural. But the list I linked above is federal scandals only, meaning the three branches of the US government.
The shift actually occurred starting around 1990. Prior to that, in the 1970's and 1980's, for Congressional scandals, there were far more democrats (ABSCAM and Keating Five were almost all dems). From 1990 to the present, the trend has gone totally opposite. The trending is strong though. It's about 2:1.
As for POTUS related scandals (executive branch), the repubs have been worse going farther back, all the way back to Nixon. GWB was the worst of all in terms of the total number of scandals. Reagan second. Nixon has the single worst. On the other end, technically GHWB had slightly fewer than Obama, but he was a one termer.
Couple of things. I remember hearing on NPR about just the opposite that corruption in rural areas is higher due to lack of reporting and absence of competing interests. You can have a town where a sheriff or mayor runs things and does things his "way" and people have little legal recourse because these things go unreported. In fact, I remember hearing about a speed trap town in rural florida that ended up in a huge legal battle over their illegal practices that were finally caught on tape by an out of towner (basically scamming people just driving through into speeding tickets to give the police department a huge slush fund). This article went on to bemoan the increasing centralization of American Newpapers because they are the only ones who reliably send people to say town or city counsel meetings to sit at these immensely boring sessions and to investigate boring, but odd moves that are made by these people that actually are rife with corruption (ie a contract going to benefactor who paid a certain amount of money for someone's wedding or child's scholarship or etc or etc and this is unreported because there are few people competing for that contract anyway).
Secondly, the southern democrats of the 1970s are now mostly the modern GOP.
Between 1960 and 1980, democratic politicians in the south became part of the GOP. Initially they were called "Southern Democrats", but had policies and principles consistent with today's GOPs prior to 1960 or so. After the passage of a lot of civil rights legislation within those years to their great dislike by their own democratic party, they joined the other team and by 1980 just called themselves republicans.
Between 1960 and 1980, democratic politicians in the south became part of the GOP. Initially they were called "Southern Democrats", but had policies and principles consistent with today's GOPs prior to 1960 or so. After the passage of a lot of civil rights legislation within those years to their great dislike by their own democratic party, they joined the other team and by 1980 just called themselves republicans.
This is correct. However, it is also irrelevant. Virtually none of the democrats involved in scandals in the 60's, 70's or 80's were from the south. Almost all came from non-southern states. There's a reason why the reps started experiencing a lot more scandals in the 90's, but it isn't that.