Once again. He didn’t make this public. The other willing participants did.
Cite that Weiner ever sent anything sexual to anyone outside of or unassociated with an adult themed “dating” site, intentionally?
Marley, if by “people he barely knew” you mean, “people who signed up for it” then sure, why not?
Yeah, you have clearly not been following this story. The woman who went public with this story in the first place said she was not sexting with him. I think he met the last woman on a site like that, but that’s not how this started.
He knew it would be politically damaging, and did it anyway, despite apparently still wanting a career in politics. This shows poor judgement.
Poor judgement is not a desirable quality in a mayor.
Braindead is the operative word here. Nobody cares about Weiner’s weiner. He’s a stumblebum who can’t keep from screwing up. The guy isn’t falling on his own sword (tee-hee), he’s jumping on it. If NYC were to become a main depository of gunpowder, Weiner would take up smoking.
So you get hard if you so much as look at her? Lucky dude! 
OK, look, I obvioussly missed it along the way – will someone point me to an explanation of where does this “Medusa” thing come up and why? It only confuses me due to my utterly not getting it.
levdrakon said she’s “evidently a medusa.” We’re still waiting on the evidence. I can believe they’re both screwed up people who are together just because they’re mutually ambitious, but who knows what they’re really like. The comment kind of came out of nowhere but it seems to fit into a pattern of excuses: his wife is horrible, everything was consensual, the women are skanks, he’s justified in lying to the people he’s asking to trust him, etc. etc. etc.
Clearly you’re not following the story either or you would know that Cordova is not “the woman who went public.”
Cordova never received the grey underwear pic. Weiner sent it out then deleted it after four minutes. Meanwhile a gossip slimeball using a program to automatically copy people’s tweets got the photo and ran with it. This is all gossip tabloid stuff, and I wonder why the particular vehemence about it.
Here’s an article about Sydney Leathers, the brave woman I assume you mean by “the woman who went public.”
“He promised me a condo and didn’t gimme one so now I’m getting rich anyway I can!”
But like I said, it was sent to her. You’re right, she didn’t go public with the photo- the photo became public because he fucked up. And I was also right that she had no relationship with him, never asked for a picture of his dick, and wasn’t a member of any kind of adult website. In your considered opinion, is she a skank ho?
I was talking about Cordova, although I got some details wrong. You should stop assuming. It’s not working out well for you.
Yes, he made a bunch of promises he can’t keep while putting himself in a compromised position. Does that sound like a smart thing for a married politician to do? Of course if he’d kept those promises he could’ve gotten into a different type of trouble down the road.
You don’t have the details right, and you’re coming across as emotional over my use of “skank ho.” I don’t see where Weiner was sending adult pics of himself unsolicited, except the accidental one to Cordova that was immediately deleted. All the other communications were mutual and I’m not buying any attempts to make Weiner look like a sexual predator forcing his junk pics on innocent girls.
Sydney Leathers, in talks to create a porn flick about it, would be the young lady who most recently felt the need to go public. She likes tobrag about milking sugar daddies.
That’s a skank ho if I ever saw one, sorry for the language.
So he never sent unsolicited adult pics except for the time he did- a “you fuck one goat…” defense if ever I heard one. Why are you ducking the question?
She was tweeting about him and calling him “my boyfriend.” They were already communicating. As much as you want to convince me he picks random girls and sends them crotch shots, the reality of it disagrees with you. Why is it so important to you that he be evil?
I didn’t dispute that they were communicating; she followed him on Twitter. They were not sexting, she was not a member of a hookup site (I think he started using those after he got caught the first time), and she did not ask to see his wang. And for that matter you’re a little off base in blaming gossip sites for catching the picture; even if it was only visible to the public for a couple of minutes, other people saw it and it would have become news.
I never called him evil. I’ve called him stupid and indiscreet some other things, and he is. But I’m trying to explain to you that several of the things you’ve said about his behavior were wrong and your comments and about at least one of the women he sexted were wrong. That pertains to your charming habit of calling these women skanks and hos: if a man and a woman are talking online and he sends her picture of his crotch unbidden, who’s the skank?
And for that matter I think it’s reasonable for the public to look at him differently in light of what actually happened. He didn’t get caught because of a consensual relationship that went wrong. He got caught because he sent a tweet instead of a DM to someone he barely knew. Although of course if it had been a relationship that went bad, which is closer to the case with Leathers, voters might well question his judgment anyway.
Why is it so important to you that he be an innocent victim of evil women?
Hey, the thread is called “douchebag extraordinaire.” I can call his online girlfriends “skank hoes” in the same spirit.
Even the one who wasn’t his online girlfriend. Anyway: I just realized a reason not to vote for Anthony Weiner that perhaps even you will agree with. You see, Weiner had the poor judgment to marry Huma Abedin, a woman so medusalike in her awfulness that she drove him to repeatedly get caught sexting while he held political office. If that doesn’t prove he shouldn’t be mayor, I don’t know what does.
I knew you’d come around.
Actually, if Huma is so wonderful, then Anthony must be too, because she knew all about him and his proclivities and still stands by him and feels he’ll make a great mayor.
How could I possibly argue with an endorsement like that?
Alas, probably not because it didn’t make him a good Congressman. Were you going to answer those other questions I asked?
Wait, Huma is a medusa because her medusa-ness drove her husband to texting penis pictures, but is wonderful for standing by him?
Serious question - what IS your problem with Huma Abedin? Why are you insisting that her husband’s behavior is somehow her fault?
And pro-tip - the reason why this thread is about Anthony Weiner and not the random people to whom he texted penis pictures is because 1) he lost his Congressional office for the behavior (which I thought was bullshit, but that’s beside the point) and 2) he engaged in the exact same behavior, without embarrassment or self-awareness, while planning to run and running for ANOTHER political office.
So, your argument is that his behavior is fine, and the only problem is with his various women?