RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 10:59:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl A great difference. King wasnt there to preach abouit family values and be elected. He was there for race relations and freedom. His personal life had nothing to do with his political one. Well, he was a clergyman. I would have thought that would have held him to a high standard within his own community on an issue like adultery. He also used his influence as part of the clergy to mobilize African-American and white clerical support. I am glad MLK was not de-railed by his community for adultery despite being part of the clergy. I am glad his community was willing to see past his personal life to the bigger picture. But my point, again, is not about the hypocrisy of conservatives like Gingrich (everyone is in agreement about that), but about the overall topic of adultery and fitness for office, and the concept of a sphere of privacy for elected officials. And my larger point is simply how many good politicians do we lose because people are too scared to even enter the profession given the lack of a private sphere? And my response has not changed. If its not one of your corner posts to your platform that is used to brace up your insistence that you be elected, then it matters not at all. But, if you use it to prove your ability to govern more effectively... if you use it to distance yourself from others... if its what you rely upon to make yourself appear the "better" person... then its fair game.

tj444 -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 11:01:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 MLK was not an elected politician, he was a private person. Huge difference imo.. I understand he was not elected. The issue is what makes a good leader. The point is simply that adultery is not indicative one way or the other about leadership qualities. I am sure MLK would ALSO have made an excellent elected public official. And maybe if he hadn't been assassinated, maybe he would have pursued an elected position somewhere. Who knows? The fact remains that adultery tells us ZERO about someone's professional capabilities. no, the question as you posed it was "Does adultery, in and of itself, really make someone unfit for political office?". That to me means elected to political office by the people of the country/state/city/county as the representation of all American citizens of the country/state/city/county.. MLK wanted to change things for black people, he was focused on a segment of Americans, to make their lives better.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 11:06:15 AM)
For the record, Newt Gingrich has lousy leadership qualities and that statement has nothing to do with EITHER his adultery OR his hypocrisy. He would not make a good leader....period. Again, let's recall this is the man who proposed sending poor school children to work as janitors. I don't even need to know anything more about this man and his personal life to know he doesn't share my vision of the world. MLK, on the other hand, actually had tremendous leadership qualities. Again, independent of either his adultery or his hypocrisy (as a clergyman). I think we should all support politicians who have a vision of the country and the world that we would like to see. And I think we should be willing to give them a sphere of privacy out of respect for the fact that even if they are leaders, they are still humans with a family, relationship issues, children, etc. Let's give them a sphere of privacy so that they can get on with their jobs. All this stuff about people's private lives is a huge distraction from the issues that matter. The press think they are doing the American public a huge service by reporting on these issues. But I really do feel that it detracts from true meaningful political dialogue. Let's recall there was a time when the media would not even print a photo of FDR in his wheelchair out of respect for the office of the President. If people slowly start focusing on what is meaningful, one starts to see that certain things (disability, adultery) do not stand in the way of leadership. If we can't separate the meaningful from the meaningless, we will continue to get the poor candidates that we get.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 11:14:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 no, the question as you posed it was "Does adultery, in and of itself, really make someone unfit for political office?". That to me means elected to political office by the people of the country/state/city/county as the representation of all American citizens of the country/state/city/county.. MLK wanted to change things for black people, he was focused on a segment of Americans, to make their lives better. Well, if you follow the whole thread, some of us also started discussing leadership qualities. Threads evolve as they go along. MLK could never have changed things for African-Americans in this country without the support of the white majority. His vision was a vision for America. NOT black America and NOT white America. But AMERICA. If you study the civil rights movement, you will understand the political forces that came together in order to make that happen. The civil-rights movement is not a story just about African-Amercians. And if you think that is what it is, then you do not understand that era of American history very well. It would be like saying the Civil War was all about slavery. No, not actually.

Lucylastic -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 11:15:47 AM)
WHen they stop trying to legislate morality then maybe that will happen until then, it wont

tj444 -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 11:16:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess All this stuff about people's private lives is a huge distraction from the issues that matter. The press think they are doing the American public a huge service by reporting on these issues. But I really do feel that it detracts from true meaningful political dialogue. Let's recall there was a time when the media would not even print a photo of FDR in his wheelchair out of respect for the office of the President. If people slowly start focusing on what is meaningful, one starts to see that certain things (disability, adultery) do not stand in the way of leadership. If we can't separate the meaningful from the meaningless, we will continue to get the poor candidates that we get. then the fact that Romney's personal tax rate is only 15% is also not relevant, right?

tazzygirl -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 11:16:20 AM)
quote: I think we should all support politicians who have a vision of the country and the world that we would like to see. And I think we should be willing to give them a sphere of privacy out of respect for the fact that even if they are leaders, they are still humans with a family, relationship issues, children, etc. Let's give them a sphere of privacy so that they can get on with their jobs. The following is an example of an Arizona adultery statute: " A married person who has sexual intercourse with another than his or her spouse, and an unmarried person who has sexual intercourse with a married person not his or her spouse, commits adultery and is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. When the act is committed between parties only one of whom is married, both shall be punished. No prosecution for adultery shall be commenced except upon complaint of the husband or wife. " I do not advocate making it a crime. Thats between the injured spouse and the others. But what if the man wanting to become President.. lets say McCain, since he is from Arizona.. and I do not know about him having any affairs... what if he did commit adultry? Would that matter if its against the law? Its only against the law if his wife presses the issue. Which means its a crime against her and not society. Doesnt matter, legally, how I feel about it. But, lets say he did.. and lied about it. Would that change how you feel now? Should it matter that someone has an affair to their public image? No, it shouldnt. But this is what happens when you try to run on a platform of "my morality is better than yours". MLK, on the other hand, actually had tremendous leadership qualities. Again, independent of either his adultery or his hypocrisy (as a clergyman). The problem with this is quite simple. His followers are the ones; he owes the explanations to. Never once did I hear MLK preach to me that family is sacrosanct. He may have to his congregation, but not to society at large.

tj444 -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 11:20:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 no, the question as you posed it was "Does adultery, in and of itself, really make someone unfit for political office?". That to me means elected to political office by the people of the country/state/city/county as the representation of all American citizens of the country/state/city/county.. MLK wanted to change things for black people, he was focused on a segment of Americans, to make their lives better. Well, if you follow the whole thread, some of us also started discussing leadership qualities. Threads evolve as they go along. MLK could never have changed things for African-Americans in this country without the support of the white majority. His vision was a vision for America. NOT black America and NOT white America. But AMERICA. If you study the civil rights movement, you will understand the political forces that came together in order to make that happen. The civil-rights movement is not a story just about African-Amercians. And if you think that is what it is, then you do not understand that era of American history very well. It would be like saying the Civil War was all about slavery. No, not actually. just cuz the thread was jacked doesnt change your original question. To me it did not. Its politicians that make the laws, no one else can. To talk about madoff? sheesh, he was a leader? I dont think so.. [8\|]

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 11:23:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 then the fact that Romney's personal tax rate is only 15% is also not relevant, right? He is filing legally. And yes, that is his tax rate. He is not doing anything that he is not allowed to do. So, in my mind, completely irrelevant. If people don't like the tax system, then change the tax system. Change the current law on carried interest if you want Romney to pay more. That is up to Congress. Again, it is more helpful to discuss policies and a vision for the future of the country. That is how one moves forward. If people would like a tax system that taxes more equitably, then support policies and politicians who make fair taxes part of their platform (regardless of what they currently pay).

tweakabelle -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 11:31:57 AM)
As a general rule, I see no reason why the private lives of public figures should be open for public analysis and discussion. There are exceptions though. If someone chooses to make sexual morality an issue, as Newt did with Clinton, and it turns out that the critic is behaving just as badly as the person criticised, then it is appropriate that the public be aware of this. It's rank hypocrisy - which is not a desirable quality in any one, but in the case of a leader/politician, a terminal flaw. Newt has claimed that his past 'errors' were due to the pressures of his work as a public representative. So he is admitting that he has a record of taking bad decisions under pressure. Leaving all politics aside, I would have thought this personal flaw to be egregious enough on its own to permanently disqualify any person thus flawed from the Oval Office. The last thing the USA, or the world, needs is a US President with a consistent record of making bad decisions under pressure.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 11:35:11 AM)
Tazzy, I think the reason that adultery laws are still on the books in many states (I believe 24 states still have them) is because no politician wants to spearhead the effort to remove them. I think I made a comment earlier on this thread that the NY law on adultery came onto the books in 1907. Prior to that adultery was NOT a crime in New York. This is important to remember. Adultery was not always a crime. I think it has been decades (since the 70s) since anyone has been prosecuted in New York for adultery. No district attorney wants to touch that. But by the same token, no one wants to be associated with trying to get rid of the law either because then it makes them look like they are "anti-family". Technically, a majority of states do NOT have criminal adultery laws. So in most states, it isn't an issue at all. And one can make a strong argument that the 24 states that still have such laws on their books should eventually try to remove them.

tj444 -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 11:42:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 then the fact that Romney's personal tax rate is only 15% is also not relevant, right? He is filing legally. And yes, that is his tax rate. He is not doing anything that he is not allowed to do. So, in my mind, completely irrelevant. If people don't like the tax system, then change the tax system. Change the current law on carried interest if you want Romney to pay more. That is up to Congress. Again, it is more helpful to discuss policies and a vision for the future of the country. That is how one moves forward. If people would like a tax system that taxes more equitably, then support policies and politicians who make fair taxes part of their platform (regardless of what they currently pay). imo, there is nothing wrong with Romney's 15% but it is being made into an election issue.. it might not make a difference to you or i but to many voters it might... he seems to be demonized cuz of it.. ironically, its Gringrich that was the impetus to have the capital gains tax reduced.. Since Gingrich kited a dozen cheques in the past, including to the IRS,.. does that issue become relevant to his fitness to serve in public office? what about his ethic sanctions? Imo, smart good people dont get into politics, they dont want the headaches, they dont want to be corrupted and that is the inevitability of being in politics in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich eta- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEfBtDr6xzI

tazzygirl -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 12:00:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Tazzy, I think the reason that adultery laws are still on the books in many states (I believe 24 states still have them) is because no politician wants to spearhead the effort to remove them. I think I made a comment earlier on this thread that the NY law on adultery came onto the books in 1907. Prior to that adultery was NOT a crime in New York. This is important to remember. Adultery was not always a crime. I think it has been decades (since the 70s) since anyone has been prosecuted in New York for adultery. No district attorney wants to touch that. But by the same token, no one wants to be associated with trying to get rid of the law either because then it makes them look like they are "anti-family". Technically, a majority of states do NOT have criminal adultery laws. So in most states, it isn't an issue at all. And one can make a strong argument that the 24 states that still have such laws on their books should eventually try to remove them. Which is why I made sure to point out the state. The problem you and I are having is you are speaking of the hypothetical... should it? And I am speaking of the reality of ... should it? In a perfect world.... It shouldnt. They use their own morals to indicate they are somehow better. Why would you not see that as a reason to discount that person?

thompsonx -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 12:52:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 then the fact that Romney's personal tax rate is only 15% is also not relevant, right? He is filing legally. And yes, that is his tax rate. He is not doing anything that he is not allowed to do. So, in my mind, completely irrelevant. If people don't like the tax system, then change the tax system. Change the current law on carried interest if you want Romney to pay more. That is up to Congress. Again, it is more helpful to discuss policies and a vision for the future of the country. That is how one moves forward. If people would like a tax system that taxes more equitably, then support policies and politicians who make fair taxes part of their platform (regardless of what they currently pay). Do you believe it is logical to think a person paying 15% tax would vote to raise his taxes to say 80%?

thompsonx -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 12:57:33 PM)
fr: Within the fitness to serve issue is the question, should politician be a profession? We license used car salesmen, lawyers and other sorts of predators shouldn't our politicians be held to some accountable standard of sleeze?

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 1:29:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Do you believe it is logical to think a person paying 15% tax would vote to raise his taxes to say 80%? By this logic FDR would have never implemented the New Deal.

tazzygirl -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 1:30:30 PM)
If its part of your platform, its open to attack.

tj444 -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 1:32:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx fr: Within the fitness to serve issue is the question, should politician be a profession? We license used car salesmen, lawyers and other sorts of predators shouldn't our politicians be held to some accountable standard of sleeze? .. ummm... perhaps they could all undergo yearly lie detector tests??? and only the ones that make the thingie move least often are given licenses to practice politics?.. As far as Newt goes.. his personal behavior indicates he is entirely unfit to be in public office, or to be a political advisor of any kind..

tj444 -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 1:34:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Do you believe it is logical to think a person paying 15% tax would vote to raise his taxes to say 80%? By this logic FDR would have never implemented the New Deal. do you think politics was anywhere nearly as corrupt back in FDR's time? is it even comparable?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office (1/20/2012 1:34:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx fr: Within the fitness to serve issue is the question, should politician be a profession? We license used car salesmen, lawyers and other sorts of predators shouldn't our politicians be held to some accountable standard of sleeze? I think you've got a good idea there. The problem is that guess who would have to pass the laws to make it go into effect? Damn politicians.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875