| 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 | ||
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
My point is that there are relevant and irrelevant ways to judge what makes someone trustworthy of office. I think their love life - and their private life as a whole - is irrelevant. If they behave like abject shit in their public life - even within the law, it's obviously something else. I really believe that this is precisely why the concept of private life exists. It's you know, private. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
in case you do something that affects other people in a immensely negative way - like behaving as a patriarch, practicing pedophile, sexual predator, being anti vax, climate change denier, corrupt - you have no place in a public office. thats my opinion. I would love to be of the opinion that it doesn't matter what peope do in their free time - if they have any as being a politician can suck every second of your day out of you. It doesn't really matter what you take up your arse, as you say it, or how addicted you are to viagra. It does, however matter to me if you abuse your partner. In whatever way possible. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
On April 02 2021 21:37 Artisreal wrote: Point is that you - in some cases - cannot ignore what people do with their private time because it is revolting? in case you do something that affects other people in a immensely negative way - like behaving as a patriarch, practicing pedophile, sexual predator, being anti vax, climate change denier, corrupt - you have no place in a public office. thats my opinion. you are mixing up everything so it's hard to answer. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
On April 02 2021 21:41 farvacola wrote: Fair enough, Biff, I just want to point out that the public/private distinction is very much an item of conceptual dispute, one that lies at the center of critical feminism. For anyone interested, here's a really good overview of that philosophical landscape. Will read it. And as usual, we don't need to agree  Thanks for the bit of discussion. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On April 02 2021 21:41 Biff The Understudy wrote: you are mixing up everything so it's hard to answer. point that its hard to impossible to disentangle that stuff stands | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On April 02 2021 21:15 Biff The Understudy wrote: 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. How in the world can you not have an opinion on someone violating their life partner's trust? If someone is a part of a culture where cheating isn't bad, then sure, it is of course not bad, since they didn't violate their life partner's trust. But if they knew their partner wouldn't like it, I can't imagine not having an opinion on that. There are an amazing number of things someone could do that are totally legal, but clearly make them a terrible person. There is a reason that deferring to law is not a valid argument in ethical discussions. It is entirely possible for someone to still be a great leader despite cheating, but voters will never have the ability to verify/know that. We aren't given every possible piece of knowledge about candidates, just what they say or have previously done. And it is totally possible for someone to accomplish a lot of things and still be a bad person. I am confident a good person will almost always be a leader I prefer. On another topic, Gaetz appears 100% boned. I would like to also point out how consistent Gaetz is with what we know about conservative bravado. The dude was so riddled with insecurity, by being forced into a thousand year old culture, that he would show nudes of his prostitutes as a method of bragging. Conservative culture is amazingly terrible. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44365 Posts
Biden to review executive authority to cancel student debt https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-review-executive-authority-cancel-student-debt-n1262791?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&fbclid=IwAR1SHGoC61SwqLsSnfo1szdZJd931wdSOxqei3rmbJgQLjIaHxjJnIUUjwU Biden's chief of staff said that the president asked the Education Department to review his legal authority to cancel debt and that he will determine how he could proceed. WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden has asked Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to prepare a memo about his legal authority to cancel student debt, chief of staff Ron Klain said Thursday, as pressure grows for the administration to address the student loan crisis crippling millions of Americans. Klain said in an interview with Politico that Biden will decide how to proceed once he reviews the memo, which could be sent to his desk in the next few weeks. "He'll look at that legal authority, he'll look at the policy issues around that, and then he'll make a decision," Klain said. "He hasn't made a decision on that either way. In fact, he hasn't yet gotten the memos that he needs to start to focus on that decision." Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and other Democrats on Capitol Hill are pressuring Biden to cancel up to $50,000 in student debt through executive action. Lawmakers have conceded that they lack the Republican support to pass a bill that would do the same. Biden has backed canceling up to $10,000, but he has said he does not think he has the legal authority to unilaterally wipe out as much as $50,000 without congressional action. "I understand the impact of debt, and it can be debilitating," Biden said at a town hall event in February. "I am prepared to write off the $10,000 debt, but not 50 [thousand], because I don't think I have the authority to do it." The memo is being prepared with the Justice Department, with the Education Department taking the lead. More than 40 million people in the U.S. are estimated to have student loan debt. The Federal Reserve estimates that in the third quarter of 2020, Americans owed more than $1.7 trillion in student loans. Studies show that students of color are more likely to take on student debt and disproportionately struggle to pay it back. Proponents of canceling student debt have argued that the president has the authority to cancel student loans under the Higher Education Act of 1965, which gave the education secretary the authority to back student loans. Biden has already exercised that authority, proponents of debt cancellation argue, by pausing student loan payments during the coronavirus pandemic. White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters in February that while the review of his executive authority continued, Biden would be "eager" to sign a bill that provided $10,000 in debt relief. | ||
|
Slydie
1920 Posts
On April 03 2021 00:05 Mohdoo wrote: How in the world can you not have an opinion on someone violating their life partner's trust? If someone is a part of a culture where cheating isn't bad, then sure, it is of course not bad, since they didn't violate their life partner's trust. But if they knew their partner wouldn't like it, I can't imagine not having an opinion on that. There are an amazing number of things someone could do that are totally legal, but clearly make them a terrible person. There is a reason that deferring to law is not a valid argument in ethical discussions. It is entirely possible for someone to still be a great leader despite cheating, but voters will never have the ability to verify/know that. We aren't given every possible piece of knowledge about candidates, just what they say or have previously done. And it is totally possible for someone to accomplish a lot of things and still be a bad person. I am confident a good person will almost always be a leader I prefer. On another topic, Gaetz appears 100% boned. I would like to also point out how consistent Gaetz is with what we know about conservative bravado. The dude was so riddled with insecurity, by being forced into a thousand year old culture, that he would show nudes of his prostitutes as a method of bragging. Conservative culture is amazingly terrible. You are assuming that someone cheating privately automatically is more likely to cheat at work as well. When voting, I want a good politician, and shame on you for caring about whatever legal stuff they do in the bedroom. Do you have close friends who have cheated? If not, then you don't have many... People can be wonderful professionals and terrible spouses and vica versa. I stand by it, sex and politics is an awful mix! For people who like sex intrigues, there is a whole branch of dedicated celebrities to take care of that bullshit. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On April 03 2021 00:40 Slydie wrote: You are assuming that someone cheating privately automatically is more likely to cheat at work as well. When voting, I want a good politician, and shame on you for caring about whatever legal stuff they do in the bedroom. Do you have close friends who have cheated? If not, then you don't have many... People can be wonderful professionals and terrible spouses and vica versa. I stand by it, sex and politics is an awful mix! For people who like sex intrigues, there is a whole branch of dedicated celebrities to take care of that bullshit. I've got one and he is notably less trustworthy than my other friends. I am not enough of a fool to think that a person is either good or bad. People are a mix of both. I can have a friend who I care about who I also recognize as an entitled, selfish cheater. I don't need all of my friends to be particularly reliable. I'd never tell him any secrets but I enjoy his company and going places with him. As for politicians, I have no incentive to accept anything less than a stellar person. I have no reason to overlook notably moral failings when I am aware plenty of good people exist. If a dude loved getting pegged while women piss on him, no problem. Enjoys wearing a diaper while getting face fucked? Why would I care? But a MORAL failing when someone is given ridiculous power, is nonsense. Either we would need to completely overhaul accountability in government or just pick someone else. I can think of friends I'd want in government and others I would not. And again, I've already pointed out that appeals to law are not valid in ethical discussions. Fuck laws. Remember when blasphemy was illegal and slavery was legal? There are reasons appeals to law are crushed into dust in ethical arguments. Law has no place in ethical discussions. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11519 Posts
On April 03 2021 02:29 JimmiC wrote: I disagree, if you are a public servant who one of the main functions is to uphold and create the laws that govern people than you most certainly should follow them. You should also be very vocal and out about changing the ones that you don't think are ethical. Public servants that privately break laws they disagree with for their own benefit are worse than citizens who do the same. And if the rule is you can break those you disagree with, what is the point of them in the first place? Following the law is something i expect politicians to do, yes. But the other way around doesn't work. "It is legal, therefore it is ethical" does not work as a position to have. And i expect (high level) politicians to follow not only the letter of the law, but also the spirit, and probably add some additional personal ethics on top of it. I am far more lenient towards a mayor in some small village than i would be towards people in the main governing body of a country. And, of course, i use the modern point of view that whatever you do between consenting adults is your own business. | ||
|
Archeon
3253 Posts
On April 03 2021 02:56 Simberto wrote: Following the law is something i expect politicians to do, yes. But the other way around doesn't work. "It is legal, therefore it is ethical" does not work as a position to have. And i expect (high level) politicians to follow not only the letter of the law, but also the spirit, and probably add some additional personal ethics on top of it. I am far more lenient towards a mayor in some small village than i would be towards people in the main governing body of a country. And, of course, i use the modern point of view that whatever you do between consenting adults is your own business. I don't think the discussion is about whether or not it's ethical to cheat on somebody, everyone likely agrees that it's shitty behavior. The point of discussion is whether or not somebody needs to always behave ethically in private and to what level to be a reasonable pick for a political position. And honestly I believe that 4 years more of Bill Clinton would have been preferable to Bush Jr.. Clinton might have been an asshat to his wife, but my impression of his administration was that it was generally a competent one. Considering that these decisions affect millions of people the question of whether you'd rather have a more competent or more ethical person in a leading role is a justified one imo. Naturally this changes with the weight of the ethical misdeed, but heavier misdeeds usually break laws. And Trump excluding the Italian circus is the only high ranking politician I know of who everyone knows to be a scumbag to his wife who still got elected, so naturally these things already play a large role. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23242 Posts
On April 03 2021 00:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Looks like Biden is taking a serious look at cancelling at least some student debt. He and Congress should also have a plan in place to curb/prevent future student debt issues; this can't be just a one-and-done EO. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-review-executive-authority-cancel-student-debt-n1262791?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&fbclid=IwAR1SHGoC61SwqLsSnfo1szdZJd931wdSOxqei3rmbJgQLjIaHxjJnIUUjwU Has Biden or his team explained the reasoning behind him already believing he has the authority to cancel $10k worth of student loans, but not $50k? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44365 Posts
On April 03 2021 05:18 GreenHorizons wrote: Has Biden or his team explained the reasoning behind him already believing he has the authority to cancel $10k worth of student loans, but not $50k? I don't see precisely why Biden thinks that he's limited at a certain debt relief cap - one would think that either he can relieve student debt or he can't, without a specific number of dollars in mind - but I did find another article that at least says the executive branch has authority to relieve student debt: "Advocates of canceling student debt by executive action say that Biden has the authority to do so under the Higher Education Act of 1965, which allowed the secretary of Education to back student loans." https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/546065-biden-requesting-information-on-legal-authority-to-cancel-student But yeah, I don't know why Biden thinks he has a specific limit. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6231 Posts
On April 03 2021 01:06 Mohdoo wrote: As for politicians, I have no incentive to accept anything less than a stellar person. I have no reason to overlook notably moral failings when I am aware plenty of good people exist. I think this is where we disagree. I'm not perfect, and neither is anyone I've ever met so far, especially if there was a camera on them 24/7. Leaders should clearly be held to a higher standard than Joe bloggs, but how much higher seems likely to come down to political opportunism more than any real principle. That's why I find this difficult. If you look hard enough, you will find dirt on anyone, especially when every public figure's angsty teenage whatsapps are being screenshotted and stored away as we speak. Plus, even if I did find the actual reincarnated Jesus of my moral system to vote for, in someone else's system he's completely unacceptable. I honestly don't think it's possible have a closet free of skeletons in this age. Really, I expect to have some moral disagreement with every person who represents me, whether in practice or intent. As a result, I think it's quite important that politicians have some resilience to minor scandals. There's a huge number of successful leaders who've achieved things I support who've had train-wreck private lives. JFK is an obvious example. In a lot of ways it goes with the territory. Long hours, corrupting power, constant interactions with people toadying to you, dancing around you... that stuff is the One Ring. That's not an excuse for serious transgressions, and there is clearly a line, but I do think this desperate digging into people's private lives mostly produces noise. | ||
KwarK
United States42745 Posts
A lot of personal scandals show extremely poor judgment. Even if I don’t have a problem with sending consensual dickpics to strangers on Grindr, for example, I would want a politician smart enough not to do that. | ||
| ||
|
|
RSL Revival
PiGosaur Monday
WardiTV Summer Champion…
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
Online Event
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
