Off-Topic Forum

@Wolverine said:

" Over the years there have been many political scandals involving very popular and powerful politicians commiting adultery. For example, the media has just reported that Republican Governer Mark Sanford cheated on his wife. Over the pass few days many people have been calling for his resignation. Do you think he has the right to keep his job after what he did?

I personally do. I don't advocate adultary but what he does with his personal life has nothing to do with his ability to do his job. If you cheated on your significant other do you think the company you work for should fire you because it shows lack of morals on your part? I certainly don't think so. I'm also a democrat by the way. I'm stating this to make sure people don't think I'm being biased.

"

This is all a matter of character.  If a man's character doesn't matter to you then, yeah, it doesn't really matter.  Politicians are hired though based on their character.  If they violate that trust with the people then they should be canned.

@Suicrat said:

If he doesn't take his oath of marriage to someone he promised to love for his whole life seriously, who is to say he'll take a harder-to-enforce oath more seriously than that?

Mostly because they are two oaths promising two different things, related to two different parts of his life.  While breaking one oath does bring up the possibility that he will break another, that is not guaranteed.  One is to a single person; the second an entire state.  While you personally equate the two, they are not the same.  Take former President Clinton.  The evidence clearly shows he was a man of constant womanizing, yet was a relatively effective governor and then president.

Womanizing is a common enough side effect of power that on surface it appears to be the rule, rather than the exception.  While probably not true, it happens a great deal.  Despite this, our government continues to operate.  As do other governments in the world, including ones with far less obsession with fidelity (such as France).  So if man/woman can do a great job, I could care less what they do in their spare time.  Sex, drugs, alcohol, none of that matters to me.  I want them to be a good governor, a good senator, a good president. 

@DragoonKain1687 said:

" Isnt he a republican? Then, wouldnt that be against their "laws"? "

Like shooting abortion providers in church to "protect innocent life?"

@goodwood said:

" @Wolverine said:

" @Insectecutor: That is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Bill Clinton got impeached for lying under oath about his personal life. In my opinion they shouldn't have asked him such a personal question under oath in the first place. "

Clinton was never impeached, he was tried. "

Being tried is being impeached.

I had no problem with the Gov's affair, but a decade earlier he called for Clinton's resignation over his affair. His hypocrisy makes him unfit, imo.

@Icil said:

" @goodwood said:

" @Wolverine said:

" @Insectecutor: That is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Bill Clinton got impeached for lying under oath about his personal life. In my opinion they shouldn't have asked him such a personal question under oath in the first place. "

Clinton was never impeached, he was tried. "

Being tried is being impeached.I had no problem with the Gov's affair, but a decade earlier he called for Clinton's resignation over his affair. His hypocrisy makes him unfit, imo. "

If that is true then he really deserves to be impeached, not for cheating on his wife but because of his hypocrisy.

@Suicrat said:

Look, don't get me wrong, I am aware there are far more eggregious acts that can be committed by a person with political power, but part of what I am saying is the perpetrator of those acts should ALSO be thrown out on their asses. What is the excuse for the lack of turnaround, and the amont of stagnation in the political class in the west (especially in the U.S. and Canada) when there are so many thousands of eager and earnest people, desperate for the chance to prove themselves? "

I think the stagnation in politics at least the US (which is all I am really familiar with) has several sources.  The biggest is apathy of the general public about politics.  You talk about thousands of eager and earnest people, desperate to be in politics.  Those people are often lost among the millions who couldn't give a damn about politics.  And then among those who do care, few want to run.  While only anecdotal evidence, I personally run into very few with political ambitions.  Even the very knowledge and active people mostly just want to find and promote someone ELSE to get elected and fix their problems.

There is also our flawed two party system, which boxes out all those who do not pick one side or another.  The system greatly discourages voters from voting for a third party.  The media even labels them as "independents," as if they do not belong to any party at all.  The second is that it turns people from voting for individuals into voting for parties, focusing on that party's stance on a hot-button issue.  A person who is anti-abortion will almost always vote Republican, even if the candidate is a cheating, lying douche-bag.  And on the opposite side, the pro-abortion voter will pick the Democratic candidate, even if he too is a cheating, lying, douche-bag.  Neither will spend a second looking at a Green Party candidate, regardless of his abortion stance. 

I think only way (short of a true revolution) that situation is going to change within the current system is a really strong, localized independent movement.  Rather than attempting to be a thinly spread national third party movement, instead be a very strong local one.  We live in a government of the people, for the people.  You start local, because that is the normal extend of a person's reach.  You convince those you live and work with that a new direction is needed.  Then you expand slowly, working up from the city level to the county, to state, and then to the federal.  Imagine if California was run in majority by a third party, with both its US senators and US representatives being third party.  That impact would start to be felt in Washington, if only because those could become swing votes, courted by both sides.  Then imagine if that started spreading to California's neighbors: Oregon, Washington, etc.  You could eventually create a large enough bloc to change the entire course of the United States.  Powerful.  But it all has to start with convincing a group people to abandon their current political assumptions for something new. 

@lebkin: It needn't be so complicated. Striving to develop a viable third party (and your country already has one, they're called the Libertarians) might also miss the mark if this third member of a newly-formed triumverate is given as much impugnity as those within the political crips and bloods. If a politician has broken a contractual obligation or broken a law, then he is not worth a second thought. No need for apologists, no need for excuses, let's find another one. There is no shortage of people willing to take office (how many candidates run for each party in each state gubernatorial primary, each presidential campaign, each senatorial campaign, each congressional campaign? Combined, they number in the thousands, that's easily enough for a sea change in the political class), so why should we treat incumbents as though they're some precious resource?

Why make excuses? Why say 'Meh, he cheated on his wife. He still might be able to do his job honourably"? There's no reason to take him at his word.

@Suicrat said:

There is no shortage of people willing to take office (how many candidates run for each party in each state gubernatorial primary, each presidential campaign, each senatorial campaign, each congressional campaign? Combined, they number in the thousands, that's easily enough for a sea change in the political class), so why should we treat incumbents as though they're some precious resource?

Incumbents are treated as precious resources for two reasons.  The first is brand recognition.  It is always easier to get a known name elected than an unknown.  Just as it is easier for GM to sell a car named Chevy than with a new name.  People buy into what they know.  The second is that a lot of positions, especially in the US Senate and House, are based on seniority.  This is extremely important when it comes to committees and their chairmen.  This is why Strom Thurmond was continually elected by the people of South Carolina, despite his extreme advanced age and extremely dated political views.  His seniority commanded prime committee assignments, which greatly benefits his electorate. 

But that is mostly a problem with education voters (so that they are more aware of who each candidate is) and adjusting the system to not reward electing the same douche bag over and over.  Both fixable.

@Suicrat said:

If a politician has broken a contractual obligation or broken a law, then he is not worth a second thought. No need for apologists, no need for excuses, let's find another one.

Now that is an interesting proposition.  I wonder what the number of viable candidates are that have never broken any law or contractual obligation.  I imagine it is a rather small amount.  That kind of rule would at least clean out stagnant governments real quick.  If nothing else, we'd be getting fresh blood.