EPTUser was warned for this post.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3134
| 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 | ||
|
LuNdEr
2 Posts
User was warned for this post. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
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. Cheating is correlated with a number of negative personality traits that carry over to other aspect of one's life. Poor emotional intelligence, narcissism, psychopathic tendencies are all significantly more common in cheaters (and especially 'serial' vs one-time cheaters). It's not at all wrong to assume that someone cheating privately is more likely to cheat at work as well. 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. This is a ridiculous example. You shouldn't ever have to choose between a stupid or an unethical politician. You should be choosing between upstanding, well-educated professionals with backgrounds as close to spotless as it gets. The way you're normalizing this 'lesser of two evils' approach to elections just shows what an abject failure the modern US political system is. It does not mean it's okay to have amoral politicians. It's not as if there's a skill points system where you're allocating stats between morality and aptitude for leadership and being a more skilled statesman means less points to put into morality, or something. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11781 Posts
On April 03 2021 14:23 KwarK wrote: Some personal life shit obviously shows character failings that would disqualify someone from public service. Most obviously half the country was stating over and over in 2016 that the character flaws Trump openly embodied would make him a terrible leader. His history of grift, nepotism, and trading favours in his own businesses would very obviously continue if he became President and therefore he should not be given that position. A minority of voters positioned in the correct states disagreed and we all suffered as a result. 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. I'd disagree with the last point here. Since you explicitly stated that they are consensual dickpics, to me they fall into the category of "people worry way too much about the sex stuff other people do". Just because it is something that is a scandal to boomers doesn't mean you need to avoid it. As your first example shows, scandals don't matter to most people anyways. The most scandalous person you can think about still managed to get elected to president. Probably due to scandal oversaturation. As someone else mentioned, you can find a scandal of some kind on anyone. And we live in an age where there is constant "scandal about this guy" stuff on the news. I think people have become fatigued of those scandals, because there is a new one every day. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2800 Posts
On April 03 2021 16:28 Simberto wrote: I'd disagree with the last point here. Since you explicitly stated that they are consensual dickpics, to me they fall into the category of "people worry way too much about the sex stuff other people do". Just because it is something that is a scandal to boomers doesn't mean you need to avoid it. As your first example shows, scandals don't matter to most people anyways. The most scandalous person you can think about still managed to get elected to president. Probably due to scandal oversaturation. As someone else mentioned, you can find a scandal of some kind on anyone. And we live in an age where there is constant "scandal about this guy" stuff on the news. I think people have become fatigued of those scandals, because there is a new one every day. That was just the result of electing the (probably) most flawed US president of all time. At this point, you could play a game of 'Which of these 5 outrageous things did Trump not do?' and then psych 'he did all of them'. It's important to remember that none of what happened in the last 4 years was normal. | ||
Falling
Canada11447 Posts
On April 02 2021 07:07 JimmiC wrote: I guess we will see on Gaetz, the Trump thing is that they supported him among a bunch of Republicans and still continue too. They do not see him as a poison pill but rather as a savior! But before we go to far down that rabbit hole, I am going to stick too that it makes no sense that Trump is evangelicals guy given his lifestyle, choices, statements on abortion before office and so on. Pence I get and many of them tossed him aside when he didn't "save Trump from the "steal", which also did not happen. I'm going to avoid your rabbit holes. Eh. I think you are painting with pretty broad strokes on what they did and did not support and for what reason. A person could be have been leery of all the distance voting and so get caught up in the steal rhetoric, but still not be pro-march on Washington and come out still supporting Pence over Trump as well as being fine with voting for Trump because of the conservative judges they got. And yeah, as far as I can tell, they know about Trump's statements about abortion prior to election- but when your only alternative is hard in the paint pro-abortion, what else is there? Again- that two party system where you can't just vote and sweep a party away. Strangely, despite states rights, US regional politics is not nearly so strong as up here. We have the same first past the post system, but if we are angry enough an entire region will reject both main stream party for a decade- take a majority government and reduce them to two MPs in the next election (1993). Probably comes back to how voting districts are set up. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Falling
Canada11447 Posts
But any republican President could get those judges. Not after primaries and not when he's running a second time when there are basically no primaries. That's where most of the evangelicals that I've heard had to get on board. Aside from a couple Republicans candidates who are basically Democrats, Trump was their last pick. But after primaries, you have who you have. And second go around there is no choice at all. Pro-choice- it's effectively the same for a pro-lifer who would argue they are pro-choice as well (carried to term, adoption) they just aren't pro the death option. You understand what I mean. The Democrat party is at a point where they are ejecting candidates for not being pro-choice. A pro-life evangelical isn't going to vote for that party unless there's something else that is an even bigger deal to them. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43722 Posts
The tactic ensnared scores of unsuspecting Trump loyalists — retirees, military veterans, nurses and even experienced political operatives. Soon, banks and credit card companies were inundated with fraud complaints from the president’s own supporters about donations they had not intended to make, sometimes for thousands of dollars. “Bandits!” said Victor Amelino, a 78-year-old Californian, who made a $990 online donation to Mr. Trump in early September via WinRed. It recurred seven more times — adding up to almost $8,000. “I’m retired. I can’t afford to pay all that damn money.” The sheer magnitude of the money involved is staggering for politics. In the final two and a half months of 2020, the Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee and their shared accounts issued more than 530,000 refunds worth $64.3 million to online donors. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/03/us/politics/trump-donations.html?referringSource=articleShare | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2800 Posts
On April 04 2021 16:52 JimmiC wrote: How very on brand, his supporters who got tricked will be like "Oh Donny, you got us again!" The sad part is they'd probably vote for him again because 'the alternative is worse'. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5763 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9639 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18855 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
Leopard victims losing face again. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On April 05 2021 01:03 JimmiC wrote: It is odd that the corporations are what's standing up for the voter rights, but then it makes you think how unpopular it is that they are willing to do it. Corporations jumping on a good PR opportunity isn't that surprising. Also, how many of these corporations took public action before the bill passed Georgia state congress or got signed into law? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
The bill is too fucking stupid to ever survive real scrutiny (as it makes water an illegal substance). Threatening to pull the rug out from the corporations funding you in response to what are very mild and easily ignored rebukes is idiotic. Especially when it goes against all proclaimed low tax philosophy they've espoused for 70-80 years. | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On April 05 2021 03:54 JimmiC wrote: That it is good PR is the point. Exactly. Which is why we shouldn't be patting these corporations on the back for doing the bare minimum after the people of Georgia's freedoms have been chipped away. Sure, it's bad PR for the Republicans in Georgia, but they're restricting voting rights. If they restricted them enough to win back the Senate, then the blowback doesn't matter. They achieved what they sought out to achieve. | ||
| ||
