Duh. Vargas\’ pseudo-populist positions always had a tinge of pander to it. No doubt, he seemed to prove to be sincere time and time again.
Obviously, he was biding his time with his fallback Plan B if ever he should lose a contest for higher office. Lose he did. Oh well. Ethics and politicians. LOL!
Whats the problem if he genuinly feels he should side with the industry? He was on a panel/commitee for the legislature and what not, its good to have people pointing out things in their favor as long as someone else is politically opposite him, that\’s how things are kept fair. It is a perk for playing the game sure, but a legit one if you ask me. If I\’m missing something please, shoot me down.
Even if you accept the premise that Mr. Vargas based all of his decisions on logic without any bias or influence which you believe is possible. I do actually believe that is possible for someone to represent all parties and do what is best for the state of California.
That being said, I think you would agree that at a minimum their is the hint of impropriety or the perception of a payoff.
Mr. Vargas would probably deep down inside tell you that as a regulator he should not accept a job in that industry after public life.
You have heard the phrase of a \’conflict of interest\’ or the judge who recuses him or helfself because of a possible conflict of interest.
Hell,Ill shoot you down. Its not acceptable to buy someones vote with the favor of a job!!
Its called the revolving door, what dont you understand here?
There should be certain jobs legislators are not allowed to take after they leave office, this could be determined by an independant bipartisen panel. Their decision would be based on conflict of interest.
If you were a highly ranking pentagon offical who had purchasing power, you should not be allowed to work for Halliburton afterwards for at least 3 to 5 years.. If you dont understand why id be happy to explain further.
1who knows, I\’ve done some thinking and seen an err in my way. \”As long as someone is positioned opposite him (Vargas)\” That makes no sense for this situation because HE is supposed to be opposite THEM (the industry) essentially. Vargas was supposed to be looking out for CA\’s best interest, but instead, as soon as he was done (retired and collecting his pension) with what he was doing for CA, (sodomizing) he defected (over-simplified). Now what am I missing?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Duh. Vargas\’ pseudo-populist positions always had a tinge of pander to it. No doubt, he seemed to prove to be sincere time and time again.
Obviously, he was biding his time with his fallback Plan B if ever he should lose a contest for higher office. Lose he did. Oh well. Ethics and politicians. LOL!
Whats the problem if he genuinly feels he should side with the industry? He was on a panel/commitee for the legislature and what not, its good to have people pointing out things in their favor as long as someone else is politically opposite him, that\’s how things are kept fair. It is a perk for playing the game sure, but a legit one if you ask me. If I\’m missing something please, shoot me down.
Even if you accept the premise that Mr. Vargas based all of his decisions on logic without any bias or influence which you believe is possible. I do actually believe that is possible for someone to represent all parties and do what is best for the state of California.
That being said, I think you would agree that at a minimum their is the hint of impropriety or the perception of a payoff.
Mr. Vargas would probably deep down inside tell you that as a regulator he should not accept a job in that industry after public life.
You have heard the phrase of a \’conflict of interest\’ or the judge who recuses him or helfself because of a possible conflict of interest.
Same thing here.
Hell,Ill shoot you down. Its not acceptable to buy someones vote with the favor of a job!!
Its called the revolving door, what dont you understand here?
There should be certain jobs legislators are not allowed to take after they leave office, this could be determined by an independant bipartisen panel. Their decision would be based on conflict of interest.
If you were a highly ranking pentagon offical who had purchasing power, you should not be allowed to work for Halliburton afterwards for at least 3 to 5 years.. If you dont understand why id be happy to explain further.
1who knows, I\’ve done some thinking and seen an err in my way. \”As long as someone is positioned opposite him (Vargas)\” That makes no sense for this situation because HE is supposed to be opposite THEM (the industry) essentially. Vargas was supposed to be looking out for CA\’s best interest, but instead, as soon as he was done (retired and collecting his pension) with what he was doing for CA, (sodomizing) he defected (over-simplified). Now what am I missing?