RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 1:50:09 PM

fucktoyprincess

Posts: 2337
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
In a perfect world.... It shouldnt.

I think we have to be future focused if we are going to save the plight of politics in this country. Talking about what is is fine. I understand the hypocrisy of what is. I am only saying that change will only come if we change our vision of what should be. If we keep treating what should be as unattainable, it always will be.

I am just trying to encourage people to make change. Change starts with small steps. One step I am taking is to talk to everyone I know and can reach about the concept of how people's personal relationships and the way they handle them should not automatically qualify them or disqualify them from public office. And to also talk to people about how a politician's vision of the future is more important The focus should be on the policies. So yes, I am future focused. I wouldn't still care about politics in this country at all if I were not future focused. Otherwise, there is zero hope. I might as well throw my hands up now and just give up (which a lot of Americans have already done - in 2008 only 56.8% of eligible voters voted. More than 40% of eligible voters didn't even bother to vote. This is how meaningless a lot of people find elections, and I think this level of apathy is unfortunate.)

< Message edited by fucktoyprincess -- 1/20/2012 2:26:21 PM >

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 81

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 1:57:15 PM

tweakabelle

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

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.

Yes. Another factor that impacts here is money politics.

As long as the electoral costs/rules continue to effectively eliminate any one bar millionaires and the already well off to participate successfully in elections, politicians will continue to be drawn from a relatively narrow talent range with shared economic interests.

This doesn't strike me as a solid foundation for ethical politics. The more diverse the backgrounds of the people involved in politics, the more likely that no single set of interests will dominate ... and that checks and balances will actually function as checks and balances.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hillwilliam)

Post #: 82

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 2:13:26 PM

fucktoyprincess

Posts: 2337
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

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?

Not really sure what point you are making here.

My point about FDR is that he came from a background of privilege. And yet he spear-headed legislation during the New Deal era that was all about redistributing income. I think it is not a fair assumption to say that just because someone comes from privilege that they would not help support policies to help those who don't have. I think this is too narrow a view of people and what motivates them. Warren Buffett is a good example of someone who has money, but supports increased taxes on the rich. He is not the only one out there like that.

I am in a high income tax bracket. I still support liberal politics and policies. I am NOT in favor of cutting taxes for the higher income brackets even though it would help me personally a lot. Any type of redistributive policy would hurt me financially, but I support redistributive policies because we cannot continue to have the kind of wealth disparity that we have. I literally am willing to pay to support my politics. I will be worse off financially if the policies that I want are implemented. I care about what happens to us as a community, not just how to line my own pocket. And there are other Americans who think the way I do. Most of my friends are the same. I could be apathetic, but I'm not. But change will only come if we can slowly convince the majority of middle class voters that they have to stop voting against their self-interest, and support redistributive policies.

I often feel voters get distracted by discussions of things like adultery/sex (whether it is Newt or Clinton) instead of focusing on the underlying policies that people have and whether they agree with making change or not. And often the politicians are taking advantage of the fact that the populace is so easily distracted by things that deep down, the politicians know are irrelevant. Every time one of these scandals occur, it bogs the whole country down in irrelevancy, and makes the political machinery grind to a halt. There is no way progress will ever occur if we can't stop distracting ourselves from the relevant tasks.

< Message edited by fucktoyprincess -- 1/20/2012 2:21:10 PM >

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to tj444)

Post #: 83

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 2:17:17 PM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

We don't elect lawyers or used car salesmen...at least the be lawyers or salesmen. The election process and the voters are the licensing agents. How many lawyers or used car salesmen have to be licensed every few years?

I think requiring a professional license or degree to be eligible for public office would prohibit many poor or undereducated people from running and participating in their local politics.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to Hillwilliam)

Post #: 84

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 2:21:20 PM

Hillwilliam

Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

We don't elect lawyers or used car salesmen...at least the be lawyers or salesmen. The election process and the voters are the licensing agents. How many lawyers or used car salesmen have to be licensed every few years?

I think requiring a professional license or degree to be eligible for public office would prohibit many poor or undereducated people from running and participating in their local politics.

Butch

Professional licenses have to be renewed along with proof of continuing education unless you're "Grandfathererd" as I am. Thompson wasn't saying you would have to be a professional to be elected, just some sort of vetting/licensing process. I'd favor background checks and drug tests for one thing.

There are politicians who would not be able to pass the background check to be a used car salesman in this country. What does that say?

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to kdsub)

Post #: 85

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 2:23:01 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

I think we have to be future focused if we are going to save the plight of politics in this country. Talking about what is is fine. I understand the hypocrisy of what is. I am only saying that change will only come if we change our vision of what should be. If we keep treating what should be as unattainable, it always will be.

I am just trying to encourage people to make change. Change starts with small steps. One step I am taking is to talk to everyone I know and can reach about the concept of how people's personal relationships and the way they handle them should not automatically qualify them or disqualify them from public office. And to also talk to people about how a politician's vision of the future is more important The focus should be on the policies. So yes, I am future focused. I wouldn't still care about politics in this country at all if I were not future focused. Otherwise, there is zero hope. I might as well throw my hands up now and just give up (which a lot of Americans have already done.)

In that light, when they stop running on family values as a moral elevation of their status, then it will cease to be an issue.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)

Post #: 86

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 2:24:57 PM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

Exactly. If they weren't making sweeping and poisonously self righteous moral judgements of everybody else, then nobody would give a damn how often they cheated on their wives...

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 87

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 2:29:16 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

The man made an excellent point.

A politician who happens to be gay is no big deal.

Yet, let that politician gay bash before the news about his own gayness emerges, and he will be crucified.

This is no different.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Moonhead)

Post #: 88

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 2:31:49 PM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

Yep.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 89

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 2:33:11 PM

fucktoyprincess

Posts: 2337
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Exactly. If they weren't making sweeping and poisonously self righteous moral judgements of everybody else, then nobody would give a damn how often they cheated on their wives...

I understand, but the focus on adultery/sex scandals hurts the liberal politicians, too. The Clinton presidency got completely bogged down by something that should have been irrelevant.

Part of my point is, if we can convince the electorate to make it irrelevant, then the conservatives can't keep using it against liberals either. Because as long as we continue to let the conservatives keep making it an issue, and as long as we keep getting distracted by them, we end up hurting liberal politics and politicians, too. If we just remove it, conservatives will be forced to compete on the basis of actual policy. And if people would focus on policy, I think most Americans actually support more liberal policies. But it all gets bogged down in the morality debate. Liberals have allowed the conservatives to define the terms of engagement - and the conservatives don't care if things get bogged down because they are quite happy with the status quo of the rich get richer and the poor can go to h***. So whatever your political stripes, if you want change, stop allowing the conservatives to constantly co-opt the debate. Stop making private things like adultery part of the debate. It will actually help liberals.

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to Moonhead)

Post #: 90

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 2:39:31 PM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

Sadly, I don't think it's going to cease to be an issue until such time as the GOP grows a backbone and stops fawning and grovelling at the religious right every election. This really isn't something that's going to stop because the (alleged) liberal Democrats stop pointing out that the other bunch are every bit as bad, whatever they claim. Unilateral disarmament is rarely a success.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)

Post #: 91

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 2:47:15 PM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

just some sort of vetting/licensing process. I'd favor background checks and drug tests for one thing.

If this were a requirement there would be few politicians in poor cities in my area. Many elected officials in my area can hardly read and write...but they do a good job representing their cities. The tweaks of this world are the only ones thinking that only millionaires are elected to public office... Hell the vast majority of elected officials in this country I'll bet make less than $150,000 a year.

There are existing qualifications for elected office that serve us just fine…The rest is and should be up to us…that’s our job.

PS… It would be much better to license voters then politicians...but if you mention it you will be called a racists ..but its Ok ...even noble to talk of licensing politicians.

Butch

< Message edited by kdsub -- 1/20/2012 2:51:25 PM >

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to Hillwilliam)

Post #: 92

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 2:56:48 PM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

YOu just proved ignorance has little to do with race

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to kdsub)

Post #: 93

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 2:57:53 PM

fucktoyprincess

Posts: 2337
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The man made an excellent point.

A politician who happens to be gay is no big deal.

Yet, let that politician gay bash before the news about his own gayness emerges, and he will be crucified.

This is no different.

Yes, agreed. But how would you feel if before the anti-sodomy laws were repealed, straight politicians had said gay people are criminal. My response would be, sexual orientation does NOT go to the issue of fitness to serve for public office.

Again, I have already said I agree with the hypocrisy issue. My thread was not really about hypocrisy. I am talking separately of just a hypothetical politician who has committed adultery (or I guess someone more like Clinton). I am just saying that certain issues like sexual orientation, adultery, etc. are really private sphere issues that do NOT have a bearing on fitness for public office, and that anyone who tries to make these into issues about the person is trying to distract people from the more important issues.

For example, should we care that Romney is Mormon? I would argue, no. In and of itself it doesn't tell me anything about him politically (it would be stupid to think just because he is Mormon that what, he is going to institute Mormon legislation that will apply to everyone?) I don't worry about Roman Catholic politicians getting rid of separation of Church and State and making the Pope head of the country. Again, I think people's personal beliefs are their personal beliefs, and that people can be part of a religion that is against homosexuality, but still support gay rights in this country. Does everyone think that all American Catholics are anti gay rights? Or that all Catholic politicians are anti gay rights or anti-abortion? I don't think so.

Again, I encourage everyone, whatever your personal political beliefs, to support politicians that support your view POLITICALLY. But this requires getting past superficial things about people and really understanding what their policies and politics are. It requires not getting distracted by irrelevant red herrings that other politicians throw our way.

I've hated Newt since the gov't shutdown of '95. Long before the Lewinsky scandal, and long before the latest ridiculousness. I hate his policies. I could care less who he has fucked. And I could care less who Clinton has fucked, too. Newt and his conservative friends went head-to-head over Clinton's objectives for education, the environment, Medicare, and public health. I know what side of that equation I was on. I don't care that both of them were and are adulterers. I don't support Newt's conservative ideology. Again, I just want people to focus on the policies and not on the scandals. If you want to support education, the environment and public health, then find the politicians who support these causes. Worry less about their private lives and more about their politics. Make change happen.

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 94

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 2:59:23 PM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

One of these days you will give me a heart attack by just saying I disagree with you butch...here is why....

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Post #: 95

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 3:07:25 PM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

I think I already have once, but it didnt make any difference, so no deference

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to kdsub)

Post #: 96

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 3:25:21 PM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

~FR (having only read the initial post)~

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
For example, is it more likely that someone who commits adultery will lie, cheat, steal, kill in their lives outside of their relationship. I have seen lots of research about how someone who commits adultery is more likely to commit adultery again. I have also seen research supporting the notion that those who have divorced are more likely to divorce again. However, I have not seen any research linking adultery, in and of itself, with other crimes.

Well, I can tell you that according to some churches (I was raised in the Catholic faith), there are many people that are adulterers;if you accept their definition.

I know I am. I was married for 8 long, misera ... oooops! "wonderful" years and have certainly engaged in sexual activities with other ladies since my marriage ended in 1996. The Catholic church (and a few others) would describe my activities as "adultery".

I promise not to use this space to debate adultery but it sickens me that something that some religions consider a "sin" is also considered to be a crime . Isn't that one of the big complaints with Muslim extremists; that they make violation of their religious beliefs a crime against the state?

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
Of my close personal friends who have committed adultery - because it happens - most of the marriages (but not all) ended in divorce. But my friends are completely trustworthy otherwise. Several of them have very important professional positions where they have large responsibilities over things like money, other people's children, etc., and not one of my "adulterous" friends has ever been involved in anything even remotely resembling a scandal at work, despite their moral failing on the relationship front.

I like to think of myself as a decent sort who would never steal, etc. and children are always ultra safe around me (having been abused, as a child, myself). But, one of the reasons for that assertion is that I live a lifestyle that requires absolute honesty. I'm polyamorous. So, I guess, by definition, I'm an unapologetic adulterer?

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
In addition, certainly those who are faithful to their lovers/spouses are not necessarily any more trustworthy or morally superior to others when it comes to matters outside the home. Certainly, Bernie Madoff was, I believe, faithful to his wife - but it didn't make him any more trustworthy to invest money with. I am sure there were many Nazis during WWII who were faithful to their spouses, but it certainly did not enable them to make better moral choices during the war.

"many Nazis". Well, anyone who didn't become a Nazi (in the rank-and-file) was killed. A large portion of Germans were Nazis because to not be one meant a death warrent. If you're speaking of the higher-ups, it's pretty well documented that Göebels (I think. I know it was one of the "inner circle") was a playboy and that his behavior was frowned upon by the "upstanding" hierarchy of the Nazi party.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
And whether rightly or wrongly, I still have a soft spot for JFK politically, even though, of course, he was an adulterous husband.

He was a great president that refused to begin WWIII, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That said, he liked to "spread the seed" and if I were that good looking and that powerful, there'd have been about twenty little "Satyrs" running around.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
Does adultery, in and of itself, really make someone unfit for political office? I would appreciate any information that anyone has on this as I try to sort this out in my own mind. Thanks.

I just don't see how someone who may be having trouble with conforming to what society says is the "norm" being morally deficient (other than just not being forth-coming about their sexual proclivities).

We're still fairly "Victorian" in how we as a society approach things of a sexual nature and there is still some element of "we don't talk about things like that in polite company".

I truly believe that "adulterers" are people that just aren't wired for monogamy. I don't think most humans are or we wouldn't have as much "adultery" as we do. I believe (my own opinion) that we aren't made to be monogamous and we're just hanging on to some archaic ideal that originally comes down to us from the advent of Christianity.

I don't think being an adulterer makes anyone more likely to rob a bank or to cheat on their taxes. I think it makes them a person that is struggling with the idea of society telling them they must be something that they're not capable of being.

Peace and comfort,

Michael

< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 1/20/2012 3:28:24 PM >

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)

Post #: 97

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 3:29:08 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

Yes, agreed. But how would you feel if before the anti-sodomy laws were repealed, straight politicians had said gay people are criminal. My response would be, sexual orientation does NOT go to the issue of fitness to serve for public office.

I would agree, unless that politician made it a huge issue, then was caught performing the act himself.

And there lies the difference.

quote:

For example, should we care that Romney is Mormon? I would argue, no.

And I would agree, unless he makes the issue of him being Mormon an issue himself.

quote:

Again, I think people's personal beliefs are their personal beliefs, and that people can be part of a religion that is against homosexuality, but still support gay rights in this country.

Again, I agree, unless they make it a political issue. Personal issues I have no problem with, we all have them. But, for a leader to lead the US, one must realize they are leading everyone... including those one may not agree with. To exclude them by bashing or negating their legitimacy will always be questioned.

quote:

Does everyone think that all American Catholics are anti gay rights? Or that all Catholic politicians are anti gay rights or anti-abortion? I don't think so.

Of course not, until they make it part of their political platform.

quote:

Again, I encourage everyone, whatever your personal political beliefs, to support politicians that support your view POLITICALLY.

Ok. I support women's rights to abortions. IF a politician doesnt believe in abortion, but agrees that a woman's right to access is in the best interest of all his constituents, then he would have my approval on that basis.

Someone who states I dont have the right to access because HIS religious beliefs say abortion is wrong and he will do his best to get Roe vs Wade repealed... will make access to morning after pills impossible... turn Physicians who perform such legal procedures into "murders" by changing the laws to suit his "personal beliefs" through political channels.

Yep, Im going to have major issues with him.

However, you must also realize many in this country hold a man's character as well as his morals as the basis for their vote.

quote:

Worry less about their private lives and more about their politics.

I am going to say this again....

When a politician holds up his private life/personal beliefs/morals as part of his political platform, he will be judged on those.

No one did it but themselves.

Dont want to be held up to those standards? Then dont run on them.

Its quite simple.

< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 1/20/2012 3:30:21 PM >

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)

Post #: 98

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 3:31:31 PM

tj444

Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

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?

Not really sure what point you are making here.

My point about FDR is that he came from a background of privilege. And yet he spear-headed legislation during the New Deal era that was all about redistributing income. I think it is not a fair assumption to say that just because someone comes from privilege that they would not help support policies to help those who don't have. I think this is too narrow a view of people and what motivates them. Warren Buffett is a good example of someone who has money, but supports increased taxes on the rich. He is not the only one out there like that.

I am in a high income tax bracket. I still support liberal politics and policies. I am NOT in favor of cutting taxes for the higher income brackets even though it would help me personally a lot. Any type of redistributive policy would hurt me financially, but I support redistributive policies because we cannot continue to have the kind of wealth disparity that we have. I literally am willing to pay to support my politics. I will be worse off financially if the policies that I want are implemented. I care about what happens to us as a community, not just how to line my own pocket. And there are other Americans who think the way I do. Most of my friends are the same. I could be apathetic, but I'm not. But change will only come if we can slowly convince the majority of middle class voters that they have to stop voting against their self-interest, and support redistributive policies.

I often feel voters get distracted by discussions of things like adultery/sex (whether it is Newt or Clinton) instead of focusing on the underlying policies that people have and whether they agree with making change or not. And often the politicians are taking advantage of the fact that the populace is so easily distracted by things that deep down, the politicians know are irrelevant. Every time one of these scandals occur, it bogs the whole country down in irrelevancy, and makes the political machinery grind to a halt. There is no way progress will ever occur if we can't stop distracting ourselves from the relevant tasks.

JFK was also from privilege, that is not what i am talking about..

What I meant was that politicians were less corrupt then.. its only been the last 2 decades that the 0.01% has been able to control govt the way they do now.. I guess in the good old days they were just assasinated, now they are just bought..

If having affairs really caused politicians to leave politics, 90% of them would be gone.. The fact is that it doesnt. Newt's affairs have been known by most people, yet he is still in politics, so much so that if he wins the primary he might just become the Prez.. So imo, voters discount and rationalize affairs as well as sleazy back room deals,.. its more the media and opponents that focus on the dirt.. Imo, Romeny's paying only 15% is more a detriment for him than Newts affairs, dumping his sick wife and getting payoffs are for him, as far as voters go..

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)

Post #: 99

RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office - 1/20/2012 3:42:54 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

What I meant was that politicians were less corrupt then.

You are SO out of touch with history.

Forgot Nixon already?

How about Tammany Hall? Corruption goes WAY back.

(in reply to tj444)

Post #: 100

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Fitness to Serve for Public Office

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.156