436
'He’s got to pay': Chaos as Republican caught pantless in town hall refuses to resign
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2026
436 points (97.8% liked)
Not The Onion
21323 readers
2241 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So let's just assume his excuse is false and he was actually there having sex with the journalist. Let's be honest, he almost certainly was. If you lose respect for the guy over the act or the lying to excuse it and don't want to vote for him to represent you, I get that. If you're his wife and want a divorce, absolutely. If you're his child or family and embarrassed by his behavior and don't want to be around him, fine.
Short of that, like... who gives a shit? "He's got to pay" "It's an insult to the city." Really? Because he had casual sex with another consenting adult that isn't his subordinate? Because he did that in a (closed) government building? Why does that matter? Why does that need to be punished? Why does he need to lose his career over it? Of all of the less than righteous things someone in a leadership position could do with their power, the thing I care the absolute least about is consenting adult sex in a government building after hours. Hell I'm not even an adventurous person and I've had sex parked in a dark parking lot and in a closed store. Should I "have to pay" for those dalliances, and lose my career over it?
Reading the article, I think it's because the dude tried to use his mayoral power to delete the video. There's two lawsuits about it. That's probably why people still give a shit.
Also it's a small town, not much going on there
Ah I didn't see that part. That does move beyond lying to cover up embarrassing sexual event to destruction of public property.
I'm sure also people see it as paying money to help organize benefits for their area, and then when they asked what happened with their money they see dude getting shit faced drunk without pants on and using the excuse he vomited on himself off their money, in the building they paid to build... They think resigning is the respectable thing to do. Government jobs are supposed to be civil servants, not night clubs.
Well that's a stupid take too. I do my job and my employer pays me. That money is now mine. What I do with that money within the bonds of the law is no one's fucking business. That goes for elected officials too. I don't care if the an official spends every spare dime of his money getting drunk on nights and weekends if he's still competently doing his job. Idk if he is competently doing his job, but I don't think this necessarily indicates that he's not either. And if getting drunk once is enough to indicate someone shouldn't hold office, that's bad news for nearly every American politician.
If the line is drawn at the door of any goverment building especially one that's isn't currently open and doing business, that's strange too. They're not hollowed ground or holy sites. They're administrative buildings. People working there are people. They piss and shit in those buildings. They microwave fish. They spread their shitty fucking colds. If the very idea that someone may have had consenting sex in one of the rooms disturbs you, I would suggest you not go into any building ever. Someone has almost certainly been fucking there at some point.
Your view is that him getting shit faced drunk and all damages and injuries that occur should be covered by the public. We aren't his servants. If you want to do whatever you want, dont do it on the property where we will held liable. Also I agree it shouldn't matter who you fuck, but if it's a journalist/reporter, all subject matter pertaining to your position is now null and void. It's like fucking the health inspector, someone else needs to be doing the inspection then.
What damages? What injuries? What the hell are you talking about? If there were any, then of course those would be his responsibility. I saw no mention of anyone being hurt by him at all though.
No shit? Who said otherwise?
Again, what are you talking about? Held liable for what?
I'm really not sure what you mean by "subject matter pertaining to your position" or "null and void". Those words don't seem to mean anything at all in this context. But if your concern is that an elected official is having sex with a journalist, there's literally nothing wrong with that so long as it's not coercive (like to get/stop a story, for example). Elected officials are allowed to fuck and even marry journalists, my guy.
You're suggesting that this creates a conflict of interest, and it very well may. But that conflict is the journalist's who writes the stories, not the official's who is the subject of them. So I still don't see how this matters for his job at all.
Yes, if I had sex at my workplace and got caught literally in public with my pants down, I'd expect (and deserve) to be fired. Come on. It is such a low bar to clear. Society has basic expectations
That's not what I said. If the city council wants to fire him, I'm sure that's in their power. But for some random dude they interviewed to feel like this guy needs to be taken down, it's ridiculous.
Why wouldn't a random dude want someone like this out of office? I do too.
If you care more about this dude having sex in his off hours at an inappropriate location than literally any other detail of his performance as an elected official, then you're as ridiculous as that guy, yes. Actually you're probably way more ridiculous because they are at least one of his constituents, and I'm guessing you are not. If that is the case, you need to majorly sort out your priorities. This purity test shit, is nonsense.
Yes, I am unapologetic about demanding politicians nationwide of either party clearing this very low bar of wearing clothes, and not having sex in their office and/or vomiting on themselves without explanation.
Good for you. Lets hope your standards for conduct that actually matters for their job are as high.