I think it's more likely that the bar for "scandal" will be significantly raised. Consider what has happened in just 20 years where we went from Clinton who "didn't inhale" (marijuana) to George Bush, whose former use of cocaine was reported but never admitted, to Barack Obama, who admitted to marijuana and drug use in his own autobiography. I imagine that politician boringness and attitudes towards what is scandalous will meet somewhere in the middle, so you'll have slightly more boring people in office, but no so boring that people would care if they found out about some trips to a sex club or something.

s/boy or girl scouts/puppets raised in a bubble by sociopaths/

... with policies dictated by the folks whose sociopaths are best at hiding behind their puppets.

It's going to be very, very ugly.

> I've thought for a long time that in the future only the most boring people who have ever lived will be able to get elected to any high office. We're talking boy or girl scouts with perfect attendance, a 4.0 GPA, never tried any sort of drug, never curse, had totally dull sex lives, and have only the most mainstream beliefs imaginable.

It's actually worse than that because nobody lives that life. So what happens instead is that everyone has to pretend to but only the ones the people with the big database don't like have their deviation from the norm sent to the major media outlets for publication.

No, who will be more likely elected to office are likely corruptible or already corrupt individuals whose vices are known levers for allowing their wealthy/corporate masters to control them easily and cheaply. Anything that breaks through can be controlled by a thoroughly corrupted corporate media.

This is the natural outcome when money is equated with speech... only the money has any say anymore.

I don't find that allegation credible. Russ Tice became a whistleblower in 2005, but never mentioned the future president was specifically and illegally targeted until boasting about it on radio program in 2013?