Pascal’s political wager…
Here are my thought on Rep Weiner’s statements about how he couldn’t say for certain weather or not the penis shown in the offending picture was his or not and why he would say it.
First of all lets assume that there are four possible outcomes…
1) It is his junk and he sent it.
2)It isn’t his junk but he sent it.
3) It is his junk, but he didn’t send it.
4) It isn’t his junk and he didn’t send it.
I think we can all agree that those are the only four possible outcomes though #2 seems the most unlikely as it would only make sense in some sort of false flag operation leading up to “oh wait, it clearly isn’t mine so I couldn’t have sent it!” but I think we can all agree it is at least a POSSIBLE (if EXTREMELY UNLIKELY) outcome.
Next up lets assume there are two “paths” “path A” and “path B”
Now lets also assume that at some point we’re going to get to the bottom of this and find out which of the above four situations is true and what the results are on Path A where he did give his statement about how he can’t be certain if the junk is his or not.
If it is situation #1 then no matter what he said (unless it was copping to it as soon as possible) he’ll look like (and be) a bunch of extremely unpleasant things.
If it is situation #2, then the end result will be the same as #1 except with an extra layer of “ick” added on.
If it is #3 however then Weiner’s statements will be vindicated and he was just the victim of a breach of privacy who had is junk taken a picture of at some point with or without his permission it doesn’t really matter.
If it is #4 then again his statements will be vindicated and he’ll be seen as the victim of an unjust smear job.
Now lets assume he said what some here on LGF have wanted him to say, that he didn’t send the picture and that it CLEARLY ISN’T HIS JUNK and we’ll call this Path B.
In situations 1, 2, and 4, the end result is the same aren’t they?
In situation 3 however Weiner will be open to attacks for having committed a lie (either of omission or on purpose) and will make it harder for him to fully recover from his smearing.
What does Weiner gain by categorically denying that the junk in the photo is his in the long run? Yes by not doing it will make more people question him, but at the same time, but on the other hand if option 3 comes out to be true (or even option four) on Path A then Weiner will have more political ammo to spend against these people to portray them as conspiracy theorists who tried to go looking for deep conspiracies that didn’t really exist when he told them the truth to start with.
In the long run, what results does Path B have over Path A?
And now that we’ve laid all that out…. is anybody here surprised that a politician took what course of action they saw as having the best long term results for them/covered all their bases?