I dunno if I buy the role model argument. Like Charles Barkley said "I am not a role model."
If a kid wants to have a crack addict for a role model, does it matter who the crack addict is? If it's not Rob Ford, it'll be some other rock fiend. You can't bubble wrap the world to protect children and the impressionable. It's their parents job to teach them what is right and wrong, and regardless of how well you raise your kids, they are going to make up their own minds (especially now that you're not allowed to whoop your kids ass if they get out of line)
As far as it being public, I don't think it's fair to apply double standards to public figures, but I've made that argument already and don't need to repeat it.
You are all entitled to your opinion, but at the end of the day, you have a right to express your opinion with your vote. If you don't like the guy, don't vote for him. Your arguments for or against any politician, no matter how ignorant or educated, rational or irrational, do not change your value in the democratic process. One person, one vote.
Art Spander once said
"Democracy is great in that it allows everyone the chance to do something stupid."
Someone else (I forget the name) further stated
"Democracy is by far the worst form of government.... except, of course, for every other form of government we've tried."
The obvious flaw to the democratic system is that people are not equally informed OR educated. One can argue that the masses will rarely make the most "educated" or "Logical" choice. It's hard to choose a good word without implying that one decision is better than the next because that is a matter of opinion, and opinions are something that we are all entitled to. The great irony is that we choose our leaders based on popular opinion, and history has taught us that popular opinions are often ignorant and quick to become obsolete.
Slavery, the subjugation of women and the concept that they were both inferior and simply chattel or property are all "popular opinions" of the recent past which we have since rejected. The foundations of North American democracy and the concept of "Freedom of speech" is designed to protect the expression of the UNPOPULAR opinion, because it is only through the expression of unpopular opinions that we can motivate change. Usually, that change tends to be positive growth, but not always.
Despite the flaws that exist in a system which allows governance through election by popular opinion, that's the boat we're in. If it's not good enough for you, you'er welcome to move to Mogadishu or DurkaDurkistan and see if you have a better life there. Our system clearly isn't perfect, but it's better than the shit we left behind in the old world. If you don't feel that way, that's your right, but it's not going to get better any time soon. All systems will have flaws, just as all people have flaws, political leaders included.
We all owe it to ourselves to find the leader and the system who's flaws we can live with and do just that; live with them. For better or for worse.
If you don't like Rob Ford, I'm sure it sucks, but the only choices you have in that scenario are to not vote for him or to move. One person, one vote. Don't like it?
They aren't gonna change it for you or for me any time soon. Not with 'Murica bombing the fuck out of anyone who doesn't stand for "Freedom and democracy".
This is the type of shit that doesn't surprise people like me, who are educated and who can read between lines. The media (some outlets, not all) wants him out, and I'm sure there's others who are conspiring. They'll chase the shit until the bitter end. And yet, Ford remains the focus while Wynn the cunt ran off with over $1Billion for something that wasn't built. But that's ok, right? (rhetorical question to all, I'm not scolding you).
