Jerry Bance, a service technician running as a Canadian Conservative Party candidate, was dropped by the party after video surfaced of him urinating into a coffee mug during a 2012 house call.
Yes, I’d call that signature significance, wouldn’t you? I wouldn’t trust a service technician who had done this even once.
Aside: Possible sub-rationalization of Rationalization #20. The “Just one mistake!” Fantasy: #20A: “I only peed in a customer’s coffee cup once!”
Possible parlor game! “Name the funniest rationalization for secretly peeing in a coffee cup.” Example: 15. The Futility Illusion: “If I don’t do it, somebody else will.”
But I digress. Where was I? Oh, right: If I wouldn’t trust him to fix my sink, I shouldn’t trust him to be a legislator. Or do we hold legislators to a lesser standard of trust than repairmen?
They don’t in Canada, apparently. Bance “is no longer a candidate,” said Conservative spokesman Stephen Lecce. Bance, he said, was dropped for not being truthful during the candidate screening process. I guess he didn’t answer that “Have you ever peed in someone’s coffee cup?” question candidly.
Here’s my question: would the ethics-challenged people currently supporting Donald Trump for President change their minds if video surfaced of The Donald peeing in, say, Megyn Kelly’s coffee cup?
Nah. After all, “She should have seen it coming.” (Rationalization #36)
Ethics Alarms 
Another interesting thing is the CBC has already aired this a few years ago and have been sitting on the tape waiting for this moment (The CBC is extremely anti-conservative).How this guy could think that they wouldn’t expose him is beyond me.
I caught a dorm-mate doing something similar into the rest of the apartment’s milk (think same orifice), because he was a slob, and we began to insist that he clean up after himself. He regretted doing this.
But, was there any RULE against it? Have other technicians in the past done it and not be held accountable? I think we can all agree this is a grey area, and, in hindsight, not the best choice. It was done because he thought it would be more convenient than looking for a bathroom, he was just trying to be more efficient at his job, he had no idea it would cause so much confusion among people. What he did was not explicitly forbidden and he faces no charges for it. It is just a great left wing conspiracy. Isn’t it disturbing that they are videoing him while he is peeing? You don’t see them videoing the liberal candidates when they pee?
On occasion is it fun to try to use the most rationalizations as possible.
It is!
I could have just used the wonderfully generic, meaningless, and seemingly convincing-to-Democrats excuse
“At the end of the day, I am sorry that this has been confusing to people and has raised a lot of questions, but there are answers to all these questions.And I take responsibility, and it wasn’t the best choice.”,
however that would be plagiarism and probably trademark violation (if my last name were Clinton, I would definitely trademark this one).
I really don’t think Donald would be that creepy. He’s probably trying to figure out how to handle her if she tries to take him down again.
I think this is part of the fallout of the soft racism of low expectations; the Liberals and the NDP have been bashing Harper since day one to get more women and minorities into caucus, and I feel, especially in the vetting of MP candidates, those groups are scrutinized less than their white male counterparts. The conservative caucus is scandal ridden, and it’s odd, but for whatever reason, scandals involving women and minorities tend to focus on behavior from their life before service, and scandals involving white men tend to involve campaign financing or corruption.
That’s not to excuse this behavior, it’s bullshit. But we need to have an honest conversation centered around the idea that the possession of a vagina or an abundance of melanin does not per se create an ideal candidate.