EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3132
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11519 Posts
On April 02 2021 03:37 JimmiC wrote: What I don't understand is for Republicans, especially the evangelicals, it should be a HUGE no no and not just morally but because it goes against their church bible and so on. But they don't really seem to care as long it is done by one of their own. You once again make the mistake of assuming that they are arguing in good faith. If anything has become clear over the last 4 years, it is that the american right has absolutely no principles which they actually hold dearly, they only use principles as a club to beat their opposition with. | ||
Falling
Canada11350 Posts
On April 02 2021 03:37 JimmiC wrote: What I don't understand is for Republicans, especially the evangelicals, it should be a HUGE no no and not just morally but because it goes against their church bible and so on. But they don't really seem to care as long it is done by one of their own. They are stuck in the two party system, the same as anyone else. They have a handful of options during primaries and after that, you have who you have. I find it interesting how often arguing in bad faith is assumed of the opposing side. A person like Milo? Sure- he's a troll and is attempting to get a rise out of people. But I don't know that bad faith argumentation is nearly so prevalent as is currently assumed. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
Nobody is innocent in this but it is as far away from "both sides are culpable" as it was in Charlottesville or on 6th January. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On April 02 2021 03:37 JimmiC wrote: What I don't understand is for Republicans, especially the evangelicals, it should be a HUGE no no and not just morally but because it goes against their church bible and so on. But they don't really seem to care as long it is done by one of their own. Christianity hasn't really had a problem with breaking its own values for literally hundreds of years. Look at the history of Christian nobility in Europe or the Catholic Church in general. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Falling
Canada11350 Posts
On April 02 2021 04:18 JimmiC wrote: Well if you are not voting Dem because they don't have Christian morals, but your own guy has proven worse morals than voting that way would be against your own logic. If you were voting Rep because you didn't believe in any sort of Gun control and you think everyone should have a AR and your guy has no morals then it wouldn't go against your logic. So it could go either way. This assumes that the moral character of a politician is the only thing they will vote on. It's hard to emphasize just what a big deal the abortion issue is for American evangelicals that vote Republican. I've out right heard 'yeah, if I had a choice of 50 candidates, I wouldn't vote for a politician that divorced his wife, etc, but I've got two options.' Because on the abortion front, the Democrats are considerably worse from the evangelical perspective. Yeah, the Republicans say a lot and don't do a lot when they get voted in. But what Democrats say and do swings right for the opposite side. It did not help things that certain Democrat politicians were so committed to standpoint epistemology (I guess they are being consistent), when asked about post-birth abortion, instead of saying no, they said, well 'as a man, I have nothing to say on the issue.' That's a BIG red flag for them. There's a lot they will put up with on their own side to avoid having to vote for a party that produces that sort of thinking. And to your lower quote, as far as I can tell that really is a big reason why these sorts of Republican evangelicals swallow the poisoned pill of Trump and vote for him. The alternative on the abortion front with Hillary or Biden/ Harris is considerably worse. In regards to Gaetz, I'm sure they'd be happy to see him out and then replaced with another Republican. Support for Gaetz pre this latest reveal should not be confused with supporting Gaetz now. You can't retroactively apply that support as being supportive of actions that were hitherto unknown by the general public. If the allegations can be supported with evidence, it seems the Republicans are ready to cut him loose as they should. Else, I would expect him to get primaried out. I don't think anyone's switching to voting Democrat over this as his moral failings have little to do with the policy of the Republican or Democrat parties. On April 02 2021 04:18 JimmiC wrote: But my greater point is that even in the primaries I don't see any consequences for these people from their own voters. It appears that their "team" winning is always more important than whatever it is that is the reason that it is so important for their side to win. And I'll also say the Dems are far from perfect in this regard. It is just not as in your face because they are not the "law and order" and "Christian Values" party. Yet there people seem to care more about law and order (based on behavior and Christian values. Like is there even a remote argument that Donald Trump lives his life based on Christian values more than Biden? Or that he respects law and order? I wouldn't have been making this argument 10 years ago because it was not nearly so obvious and the differences were not so stark! Edit: Happy cake day Sim! Edit #2: I'm bringing up Trump along with Gaetz because they are both evangelicals preferred choices even within the Republican party. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28673 Posts
I'd likewise be more okay with a right winger 'government is worthless and taxation is theft' type of person who committed tax fraud than I would be with a left wing 'we must increase taxes across the board to fund the institutions our society needs' doing the same thing. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
The first two are scummy but nothing I would want one of my own representatives to resign for if I agreed with them. The last is beyond the pale. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6231 Posts
I do believe pretty strongly that what I do in my own time is my business and not my boss's. How this applies to politicians has shifted over time for me, but I still think there is some level where what they do out-of-hours is not my business. The point where it becomes my business is... fuzzy, but I think hypocrisy has to be part of the equation. As drone said, if pence was having a homosexual affair while pushing family values, that is relevant to his family values voters. Likewise if AOC was off big game hunting in Africa, that would be relevant to her environmentalist voters. Those things would show that they were not genuine in their representation, and that's important when their whole job is to represent. On Gaetz specifically, I don't know his history well enough to have an opinion, but the underage/trafficking angle is very significant. I think what he did would be illegal in Australia, for example. I do think the American right seems much less willing to hold their politicians to account for this kind of thing, and that has always surprised me. There's a related situation over here at the moment, actually. One of our politicians was recently caught sexting a prostitute during parliament. I'm still a bit conflicted about this. On the one hand, it's clearly not great, but on the other he got absolutely destroyed for something that seems to have been consensual. There's MPs who are advocates for sex work who are going to town on this guy for engaging a sex worker. It just looks very opportunistic, particularly when there's a number of other politicians under pressure for sexual harassment, rape allegations etc who have been able to hold out much longer. I don't really have any answers, beyond agreeing that illegal bahaviour is obviously too far. If the behaviour is legal then the question is whether it undermines their credibility, and I think that's something for their supporters to decide. I don't have much patience with a pro-coal politician attacking a green for driving an SUV, or a social libertarian attacking a conservative for having an affair, for example. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25431 Posts
On April 02 2021 13:08 Belisarius wrote: This is complicated with a lot of overlapping issues. I'm not sure how I feel. I do believe pretty strongly that what I do in my own time is my business and not my boss's. How this applies to politicians has shifted over time for me, but I still think there is some level where what they do out-of-hours is not my business. The point where it becomes my business is... fuzzy, but I think hypocrisy has to be part of the equation. As drone said, if pence was having a homosexual affair while pushing family values, that is relevant to his family values voters. Likewise if AOC was off big game hunting in Africa, that would be relevant to her environmentalist voters. Those things would show that they were not genuine in their representation, and that's important when their whole job is to represent. On Gaetz specifically, I don't know his history well enough to have an opinion, but the underage/trafficking angle is very significant. I think what he did would be illegal in Australia, for example. I do think the American right seems much less willing to hold their politicians to account for this kind of thing, and that has always surprised me. There's a related situation over here at the moment, actually. One of our politicians was recently caught sexting a prostitute during parliament. I'm still a bit conflicted about this. On the one hand, it's clearly not great, but on the other he got absolutely destroyed for something that seems to have been consensual. There's MPs who are advocates for sex work who are going to town on this guy for engaging a sex worker. It just looks very opportunistic, particularly when there's a number of other politicians under pressure for sexual harassment, rape allegations etc who have been able to hold out much longer. I don't really have any answers, beyond agreeing that illegal bahaviour is obviously too far. If the behaviour is legal then the question is whether it undermines their credibility, and I think that's something for their supporters to decide. I don't have much patience with a pro-coal politician attacking a green for driving an SUV, or a social libertarian attacking a conservative for having an affair, for example. It’s strange, people just kind of roll their eyes and go ‘politicians gonna be corrupt eh?’ whenever they’re blatantly corrupt, behaviour a good many of us avoid doing in our personal lives. When it comes to personal peccadilloes, many of us have indulged in personally, or certainly been friends with someone who has and remained so, the pitchforks come out. Not so much the moral Puritanism has confused me forever, more so the differing responses in these domains. | ||
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
On April 02 2021 08:16 Liquid`Drone wrote: Imo the big issue is hypocricy. I'm generally not very judgemental towards adultery, and not at all judgemental towards homosexuality, but if a Mike Pence type person was caught having a homosexual affair, then that affair would invalidate the persona he has tried to cultivate, and it would be rational to drop him based on his homosexual affair even if you don't think homosexuality or adultry are big moral offenses (if moral offenses at all). I'd likewise be more okay with a right winger 'government is worthless and taxation is theft' type of person who committed tax fraud than I would be with a left wing 'we must increase taxes across the board to fund the institutions our society needs' doing the same thing. I have to agree with all of that. Also to answer a previous comment I don't think that the way one conducts his love life is a good metric to how trustworthy he will be in office. Those are simply different things. My biggest objection to that scandal culture is that we don't know. We don't know what happens in one's couple, how one sees life, what battles one fights with his sexuality and his love life, what level of trust there is in one's couple or even if a couple really is a couple or just a facade, what feelings one had for whoever he cheats with and so on and so forth. And I believe that fantastic people can have very complicated love lives, and less than clear relationship to their spouses. I'm really no one to judge. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44368 Posts
On April 02 2021 09:38 Nevuk wrote: I don't really care about the hypocrisy or morals of him sleeping with a 17 year old at 30. I'm much more concerned if she was an underage prostitute, as those are much more likely to be a part of sex slavery (which is what seems to be being suggested by some commentators). The first two are scummy but nothing I would want one of my own representatives to resign for if I agreed with them. The last is beyond the pale. Well yeah, because "underage prostitute" is just a thinly veiled subset of "rape victim", even if it's "just" statutory and even if the child/teenager got paid. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On April 02 2021 16:22 Biff The Understudy wrote: I have to agree with all of that. Also to answer a previous comment I don't think that the way one conducts his love life is a good metric to how trustworthy he will be in office. Those are simply different things. My biggest objection to that scandal culture is that we don't know. We don't know what happens in one's couple, how one sees life, what battles one fights with his sexuality and his love life, what level of trust there is in one's couple or even if a couple really is a couple or just a facade, what feelings one had for whoever he cheats with and so on and so forth. And I believe that fantastic people can have very complicated love lives, and less than clear relationship to their spouses. I'm really no one to judge. How far does this lenient view go, though? Is it your view that a person may be fantastic despite being a known liar? How about failing to pay child support despite having the funds to do so? Is your tolerance for "cheating" confined to relationships because of how nebulous relationships can be, and if so, why does that not also apply to other situations where bad acts can be explained away using similar casuistry? These aren't questions of absolute metrics, rather relative notions of character that tend to say things, at least without further explication. I'll add that "the personal and private are the political," a foundation of 2nd wave feminism, is at odds with the notion that relationships are inscrutable black boxes incapable of bearing external judgments. Many an abusive significant other would love for folks to keep their nose out of what goes on behind closed doors. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
On April 02 2021 20:53 farvacola wrote: How far does this lenient view go, though? Is it your view that a person may be fantastic despite being a known liar? How about failing to pay child support despite having the funds to do so? Is your tolerance for "cheating" confined to relationships because of how nebulous relationships can be, and if so, why does that not also apply to other situations where bad acts can be explained away using similar casuistry? I think the old fashion concept of "private life" applies here. I am not interested in public figure's private lives unless it's particularly relevant. Drone's example are good because they expose disingenuity; I care about a politician who runs on family and christian values and has an anti lgbt agenda to have a homosexual affair; I don't care at all if it does not directly intersect with his platform and ideology. And most of all, I do NOT believe that the world is divided between good and bad people. Almost everyone can be a total dick in certain cases and great in others. Altogether, in a case, like, say, Tiger Woods, I would say that I was much more shocked by the public and the media milking their obscene and voyeurist indignation than by the way he decided to lead his sex life. That's really his problem. Similarly, I think Bill Clinton or Jaques Chirac having mistresses is of exactly zero interest to determine if I would vote for them or not. And as a matter of fact, if they are stingy with paying child support (within the boundary of the law), I don't care one bit either. I would probably not be their friend, but that's not what it's about. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
Otherwise it just sends a message that as long as men have power they can just shit on the feelings of their partners - boys will be boys, you know. Unacceptable behaviour that marginalizes and factually endagers >50% of the population. And men will feel even more entiteld to that power, because the model man does it, we are allowed to do it. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
On April 02 2021 21:11 Artisreal wrote: As far as setting the tone of public discourse, it matters immensely whether the wife of Clinton or Chirac is fine with them having affairs. Much more important imo than whether they have em or not. Otherwise it just sends a message that as long as men have power they can just shit on the feelings of their partners - boys will be boys, you know. Unacceptable behaviour that marginalizes and factually endagers >50% of the population. And men will feel even more entiteld to that power, because the model man does it, we are allowed to do it. I don't think it's relevant at all and you don't need to be in power, nor to be a man, to have affairs. I'm not saying that I think it's great to have an affair (I have no opinion actually, it really depends), but that the relationship between someone and his spouse is their business, as long as they respect the law. I don't elect a good spouse, I elect a leader for taking political decision. If that person happens to be a lousy partner, that's sad for them and their love ones but that's really none of my concern. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
There's an important caveat here; you have been careful to couch this in "I" terms, which I don't think anyone would take issue with, you've provided plenty of good reasons in support of your take on judging politicians. The more interesting question is how you judge the competing frameworks of others that place emphasis on other things. For example, do you respect the views of someone who would judge a cheater more harshly? It's easy to chalk up concerns of adultery to American "sexual morality," but in doing so, are you carte blanche judging views that appear to align with "American sexual morality" as undeserving of collective acceptance? It also seems odd to track judgments of politicians with what is and is not legal, it's not exactly hard to imagine scenarios where someone has toed the legal line their whole life, yet is an abject piece of shit that treats others terribly. And the same can be said for the inverse, there are certainly plenty of excellent people that have nevertheless broken laws of all kinds. In the context of relationships, you're basically drawing the line at: you can treat your significant other as terribly as you like so long as you don't break any laws. Which, again, is fine given how complex these judgments can be, but I would assert that it's also fine for someone to judge that scenario differently, which is what political pluralism is all about. | ||
| ||
