Toronto's fat, vulgar, crack-smoking mayor

Its too bad he has a drinking problem

He could have been so much better

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You make my skin crawl. You go on and on about Treyvon Martin smoking weed and what a thug he was, now you have a thug of a mayor in Toronto that smokes crack and he has your vote. What a fecking hypocrite!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He could never have been anything but a fathead. There seems to be a plague of fathead politicians lately. People fall for this load of shite because they think it's going to save them money, but they end up losing a whole lot more than they gain, and it takes far longer than they know to recover those losses, once the relatively sane and sober majority regains control.

On the other hand, he's nothing out of the ordinary - just a caricature of all the corrupts city halls of North America for the last century. You'd expect it in Chicago or Miami, not Hogtown.... Congratulations, TO, you've made it to the big time.

...sigh!

 

If he's good at his job, does it really matter? I mean, obviously if he has a drug problem, he needs to sort it out, but I don't think anyone here would recommend their loved one losing a job simply because they have issues. Why does this guy need to be out of office?

 

Okay, if you're talking abuses of power and misuse of public funds, then I understand. My thing is, we shouldn't get so caught up in people's personal lives. The main question should be relating to whether or not they are capable of doing their job well.

 

Not to mention that he is directly involved for the funding of the police department which is investigating him. Quite the conundrum.

 

Being a public official like a mayor means you represent the city and the people of the city. That IS part of his job. If you're such a classless drug-addicted moron that you can't even do that well, then no, you shouldn't be mayor. And everyone knows when you enter public office, your personal life is automatically under scrutiny. It just goes with the territory. There's plenty of ethical candidates out there who are more than qualified to fill his position.

 

He fired people and broke unions. When Thatcher did that, people widely wanted to hang her. I'm undecided but mildly prejudiced against the idea that that's always a good thing.

 

"It just goes with the territory" doesn't cut it. Nor do I accept that a political representative must represent his or her constituents in how he or she conducts their personal life. For one, it's absurd to think that a person can be like all of the people they represent. Secondly, how they behave--so long as it doesn't interfere with how they do their job--shouldn't really matter. Do you know how many of our founders were slave owners? And at a time when they knew it was wrong? Would you, had you the chance, go back in time and remove every slave-owning, philandering, na'er do well from their office because of your moral objections to their lifestyle?

If the mayor has a substance abuse problem, he should get help. Vilifying him and demanding he be fired seems both stupid and cruel, though Bells says he's done some things in office that are actually firable offenses so then whatever. My point has been that we expect public figures to be moral paragons when we know it's unrealistic to do so, and we run the risk of missing out on good leaders because of it. I don't know if this guy was any good at his job, but that doesn't even seem to be part of the equation, which to me sounds ridiculous.

 

Bullshit. It's not unrealistic at all to expect your own mayor, who does indeed represent your city and the people of it, to not be a crack addict and a sexual harrasser of women and a drunken sleezeball who threatens to murder people. As it stands now he is the laughing stock of the whole world and an embarrassment to the Toronto city council. Hence his being stripped of mayoral powers. Your kneejerk defense of this moron makes me question your own ethical standards. You do have some don't you?

 

@ Bells,

I can see it is a normal part of being mayor to help all citizens and keep an eye on the justice system including its fairness. I would think not everyone deserving of life imprisonment was commuted as you seem to suggest, but rather a select few who had seen tough breaks.

In this age where everyone has a video camera within 10 feet all the time we will see a lot more private videos like the one that Exposed Mr Ford. If we only let the Nerdy Virgins any leeway on the political front soon enough the countries will be run by the PeeWee Hermans of our time.

As I have said. Ford took on spending across the entire government cutting their numbers and wages. He has already done his promises.
He was only caught by a sneaky film capturing him trying crack while at a party drinking, I do not endorse using private videos for blackmail, etc.

.

 

You again seem to misunderstand what it means to "represent." Bill Clinton was a philandering liar who also happened to be a good leader and a great humanitarian. His behavior with women was not at all representative of the moral compass of the country, yet those who defended him--myself included--cared less about where he laid his cigars and more about how he lead this country.

Sexual harassment is obviously something that can and should get him fired. His "death threats" were just drunken toughguy talk, and trying to characterize them as something more than that indicates you're more interested in piling on than finding out the truth.

I just don't get why the first reaction to hearing that a public figure has a substance abuse problem is to mock them, and shortly thereafter string them up from the nearest tree. He was voted in, doesn't anybody want to see that he gets some help? Why hasn't that ever been part of the discussion?

Hence nothing. Being an embarrassment and a laughing stock isn't cause enough to lose your position. George W Bush checked both of those boxes even before 9/11 and his War on Terror.

No, your lack maturity makes you question my ethical standards. It's easier to attack me than it is to effectively rebut my arguments. This ad hominem attack is one example; another would be you completely ducking my question about morality in politics. I'll direct you to my last post and ask you to address the point I made there about our founders, in the hope that you've recovered some of that missing integrity since your last reply.

 

Ford is responsible as mayor for drugs and gangs in Toronto and he smokes crack and hangs out with known criminals privately. Is this really okay? What does this relay to the youth of Toronto?

I agree that Ford needs to get help and am hoping that he is successful in overcoming his reckless behavior, but he needs to step down while doing so. If he wishes to run again in the next election and the people of Toronto see fit to give him another chance then so be it.

I like Bells am curious to see what else comes out about Ford, especially his business dealings.

BTW, if there was video of Clinton using his cigar on Lewinsky's cooch, I dare say he would have been impeached and probably single too!

 

Interesting: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-toronto-cant-fire-crack-mayor-rob-ford-2013-11

 

No one takes you serious, you do know that don't you? Lol, Ford is the victim here?

 

The union-busting or the hanging?