• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's more important to you: your party's political primacy or elected office holder's probity? II

What's more important to you: your party's political primacy or elected office holder's probity?

  • A party's primacy; I don't belong to a party

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    18

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What's more important to you:
  • Your/a party's political primacy?
  • An elected office holder's probity?


The question is "What's more important to you: your party's political primacy or elected office holder's probity?" The poll offers the following answer options:
  1. A party's primacy; I belong to a party
  2. A party's primacy; I don't belong to a party
  3. An elected office holder's probity; I don't belong to a party
  4. An elected office holder's probity; I belong to a party
  5. I don't know which of those two is most important to me
  6. I think neither is important


Consider the two options offered and determine which one is most important to you. Be sure to consider the literality and implications of each option.

Mind, I'm not asking you to choose one or the other; the question presumes you value one or the other, though there is an answer option for those who value neither. That said, I asking which, give the totality of your values, you rank higher.
 
Last edited:

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
32,052
Reaction score
31,037
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
:popcorn2: (This might get entertaining.)
 

TheParser

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Messages
12,913
Reaction score
6,182
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I am an Independent.

So I choose a candidate on his/her probity.

In 2016, therefore, I had no choice but to vote for Candidate Trump.
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
12,350
Reaction score
16,785
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I voted neither. Even though I am a Republican, I do not believe in "party primacy" because I do not think politics is a team sport. Rather, I vote for the Republican Party because it aligns with my conservative principles. When it ceases to stand up for my conservative principles and becomes an anti-gun, anti-free speech, anti-business and anti-Israel party, I shall cease being a Republican. Additionally, personal decency and probity while of the utmost importance for a candidate does not impress me if he or she wishes to wipe away and demolish everything that I believe makes this country exceptional and worth living in. Barack Obama is undoubtedly a better family man than Donald Trump. But did that personal probity and decency make him better at dealing with Russia or Iran in the Wilsonian manner that he did? Or better at leading the so-called fixes America's already creaking healthcare system? No. I would argue it did not. If one adheres to a set of principles diametrically opposed to those that I considered good, personal probity matters not one iota.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,880
Reaction score
24,980
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I can't say which is more important to me.

I have been a member of three political Parties in the past; Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian. I have been disappointed in the actions/goals/accomplishments of all three.

I once would have declared "probity" (ala "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington") except experience has forced me to recognize that few (if any) elected officials are as honest as they project themselves to be, so many seem willing to "compromise" their integrity in the face of public opinion or the push of their Party to achieve specific goals.

Now I am simply "Independent," voting as my conscience decides; which most often turns out to be which platform comes closest to my personal values and which candidate is the lesser of the two evils.
 
Last edited:

SDET

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
1,610
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That was Mexico's choice in their recent Presidential election. AMLO is perceived as honest, but is a personal and ideological friend of Raul Castro. The others were considered brazenly corrupt. Let's see how that works out.
 

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
14,490
Reaction score
3,019
Location
Beirut
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Neither of those are important to me. What's important to me is ideology, do you agree with me, or do you not? Whichever candidate is closest to my idea, gets my vote. Probity is overrated, and parties are just labels. That's all it is for me.
 

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
What's more important to you:
  • Your/a party's political primacy?
  • An elected office holder's probity?


The question is "What's more important to you: your party's political primacy or elected office holder's probity?" The poll offers the following answer options:
  1. A party's primacy; I belong to a party
  2. A party's primacy; I don't belong to a party
  3. An elected office holder's probity; I don't belong to a party
  4. An elected office holder's probity; I belong to a party
  5. I don't know which of those two is most important to me
  6. I think neither is important


Consider the two options offered and determine which one is most important to you. Be sure to consider the literality and implications of each option.

Mind, I'm not asking you to choose one or the other; the question presumes you value one or the other, though there is an answer option for those who value neither. That said, I asking which, give the totality of your values, you rank higher.

I'm a registered Green and I voted for probity. However it does not go without saying that contemporary elections are about IMAGERY and the lack of competent investigative reporting allows an absolute fantasy World of election playing fields. More better to give weight to track records of promises and deliveries. People that have performed well with minimal resources. I look with great suspicion upon the perfect haircut, perfect color tie, perfect suit for the occasion, lots of finger guns, a/k/a IMAGERY.
/
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,253
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That is kind of a weird angle. To want or even expect any primacy is a fools errand. I think of politics more as hiring a lawyer - to fix something affecting me. I don't care if he is locked out of church, just fix it.

You have to assume that politicians consider getting re-elected as "job number one" over and above everything else.
And from there you have to accept as fact that a politicians standards of honesty are widely different from citizen's.

I am an independent, and have been for years. I have voted for both parties state wide, not so much nationally.

I'll refer you to a quote by "Big Daddy" Jesse Unruh - a major political wheeler dealer in the 60's - 70's in California: "If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them you've got no business being up here." And let us not forget: "Money is the mother's milk of politics.".

The Seven Deadly Sins are part and parcel of survival in politics.
If Capital Hill was subject to an investigation one third as intensive as a Special Fisherman, half of them would be in jail. In truth, de facto legal exemptions are granted to member of congress because, well, "we understand how you are and what it takes. Just don't go too far or piss us off."

Sidebar:
Has anyone ever wondered if Maxine Waters was once a bright eyed and bushy tailed freshmen like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Politics changes people.
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
29,020
Reaction score
19,441
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
This is not a choice that you have to make in the vast majority of elections. Most politicians of either party are decent people. For example, in 2004 you had the choice between Bush and Kerry. Both were decent people. You just had to pick the one you agreed with most in terms of policy / ideology. The same was true in 2008 and 2012. It has really been the case for my entire life until 2016. That doesn't mean that at times candidates don't have flaws or moral failings, but it does mean that fundamentally, they are usually decent and conscionable people regardless of their party.

An utterly despicable human being for our president is not a common occurrence in this country. I am 42 years old, and in my lifetime our current president is the only one the only one fit that description. The only president that would have fit that description in the entire 20th century would have been Nixon, and at least Nixon was competent.

We should not treat this as though it is normal. There are plenty of candidates in both parties that are decent people. You do not have to vote for a despicable human being to find a candidate that fits your views.
 
Last edited:

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That is kind of a weird angle. To want or even expect any primacy is a fools errand. I think of politics more as hiring a lawyer - to fix something affecting me. I don't care if he is locked out of church, just fix it.

You have to assume that politicians consider getting re-elected as "job number one" over and above everything else.
And from there you have to accept as fact that a politicians standards of honesty are widely different from citizen's.

I am an independent, and have been for years. I have voted for both parties state wide, not so much nationally.

I'll refer you to a quote by "Big Daddy" Jesse Unruh - a major political wheeler dealer in the 60's - 70's in California: "If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them you've got no business being up here." And let us not forget: "Money is the mother's milk of politics.".

The Seven Deadly Sins are part and parcel of survival in politics.
If Capital Hill was subject to an investigation one third as intensive as a Special Fisherman, half of them would be in jail. In truth, de facto legal exemptions are granted to member of congress because, well, "we understand how you are and what it takes. Just don't go too far or piss us off."

Sidebar:
Has anyone ever wondered if Maxine Waters was once a bright eyed and bushy tailed freshmen like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Politics changes people.
Red:
By "Special Fisherman," are you referring to an outcome resulting from an existential application of the so-called "fisherman's dilemma" borne of the game theory (see page 13 in the linked document; see also prisoner's dilemma) concepts Hardin posited in "The Tragedy of the Commons?"
 

Superfly

~ Road-trippin' musician ~
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
41,336
Reaction score
27,991
Location
Tucson to Tucumcari, Tehachapi to Tonapah
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
This is not a choice that you have to make in the vast majority of elections. Most politicians of either party are decent people. For example, in 2004 you had the choice between Bush and Kerry. Both were decent people. You just had to pick the one you agreed with most in terms of policy / ideology. The same was true in 2008 and 2012. It has really been the case for my entire life until 2016. That doesn't mean that at times candidates don't have flaws or moral failings, but it does mean that fundamentally, they are usually decent and conscionable people regardless of their party.

An utterly despicable human being for our president is not a common occurrence in this country. I am 42 years old, and in my lifetime our current president is the only one the only one fit that description. The only president that would have fit that description in the entire 20th century would have been Nixon, and at least Nixon was competent.

We should not treat this as though it is normal. There are plenty of candidates in both parties that are decent people. You do not have to vote for a despicable human being to find a candidate that fits your views.

Well said.
 

Superfly

~ Road-trippin' musician ~
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
41,336
Reaction score
27,991
Location
Tucson to Tucumcari, Tehachapi to Tonapah
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Honestly, before 2016, I would have a different answer, but now, I am all in for anybody that is a Democrat, just to fix what Trump has ****ed up.

Once the country is back to normal, and we are no longer a joke on the world stage, I will again start voting with my heart, and my conscience, but right now? I'm all blue, no matter who.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
23,578
Reaction score
12,384
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
What's more important to you:
  • Your/a party's political primacy?
  • An elected office holder's probity?


The question is "What's more important to you: your party's political primacy or elected office holder's probity?" The poll offers the following answer options:
  1. A party's primacy; I belong to a party
  2. A party's primacy; I don't belong to a party
  3. An elected office holder's probity; I don't belong to a party
  4. An elected office holder's probity; I belong to a party
  5. I don't know which of those two is most important to me
  6. I think neither is important


Consider the two options offered and determine which one is most important to you. Be sure to consider the literality and implications of each option.

Mind, I'm not asking you to choose one or the other; the question presumes you value one or the other, though there is an answer option for those who value neither. That said, I asking which, give the totality of your values, you rank higher.

You didn't give us the option of a political party's probity which is what I would have picked. You can choose the most virtuous and noble candidate who ever ran for office, but if he/she lacks skills or competence for the job, he/she will not be successful. . .AND if he/she is not supported by a political party that supports virtuous, noble, and/or competent goals and objectives, the best of intentions simply won't happen.
 

<alt>doxygen

"I want MY WALL!"
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2016
Messages
8,932
Reaction score
4,191
Location
Floriduh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This is not a choice that you have to make in the vast majority of elections. Most politicians of either party are decent people. For example, in 2004 you had the choice between Bush and Kerry. Both were decent people. You just had to pick the one you agreed with most in terms of policy / ideology. The same was true in 2008 and 2012. It has really been the case for my entire life until 2016. That doesn't mean that at times candidates don't have flaws or moral failings, but it does mean that fundamentally, they are usually decent and conscionable people regardless of their party.

An utterly despicable human being for our president is not a common occurrence in this country. I am 42 years old, and in my lifetime our current president is the only one the only one fit that description. The only president that would have fit that description in the entire 20th century would have been Nixon, and at least Nixon was competent.

We should not treat this as though it is normal. There are plenty of candidates in both parties that are decent people. You do not have to vote for a despicable human being to find a candidate that fits your views.

I have to agree. The rise of Trumpism has changed my calculus when it comes to voting. Other than local elections I might end up a single party voter from here on. And I always hated single party voters...:(:roll:
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,880
Reaction score
24,980
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This is not a choice that you have to make in the vast majority of elections. Most politicians of either party are decent people. For example, in 2004 you had the choice between Bush and Kerry. Both were decent people. You just had to pick the one you agreed with most in terms of policy / ideology. The same was true in 2008 and 2012. It has really been the case for my entire life until 2016. That doesn't mean that at times candidates don't have flaws or moral failings, but it does mean that fundamentally, they are usually decent and conscionable people regardless of their party.

An utterly despicable human being for our president is not a common occurrence in this country. I am 42 years old, and in my lifetime our current president is the only one the only one fit that description. The only president that would have fit that description in the entire 20th century would have been Nixon, and at least Nixon was competent.

We should not treat this as though it is normal. There are plenty of candidates in both parties that are decent people. You do not have to vote for a despicable human being to find a candidate that fits your views.

:doh

One could easily argue that Hillary was "despicable," as evidenced by all the crap that came out of the DNC hacking, the server investigation, and her own past history. One could also claim Bill was as bad if not worse, that Bush Jr. (who got us into a 17 year war of occupation in the Middle East) was both a "stupid" and "despicable" pawn of VP Dick Cheney, and the list goes on.

One could also easily argue that Trump was brutally honest about who and what he was during the election. So much so that the MSN spent all it's time labeling him racist, sexist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, etc., for the things he allegedly stated and did. Things no "politician" would have dared say for fear of being destroyed by the same white knights of the Liberal MSN.

It seems to me to be all a matter of opinion, which is more often than not based on confirmation bias. He was a "very bad man" not expected to win. He won anyway. As a bad man he should not have won, therefore must have cheated, etc. etc. etc.
 
Last edited:

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
What's more important to you:
  • Your/a party's political primacy?
  • An elected office holder's probity?


The question is "What's more important to you: your party's political primacy or elected office holder's probity?" The poll offers the following answer options:
  1. A party's primacy; I belong to a party
  2. A party's primacy; I don't belong to a party
  3. An elected office holder's probity; I don't belong to a party
  4. An elected office holder's probity; I belong to a party
  5. I don't know which of those two is most important to me
  6. I think neither is important


Consider the two options offered and determine which one is most important to you. Be sure to consider the literality and implications of each option.

Mind, I'm not asking you to choose one or the other; the question presumes you value one or the other, though there is an answer option for those who value neither. That said, I asking which, give the totality of your values, you rank higher.

I see one problem with your OP; ti is too black and white. I just want to see ANY party do things that are good for all of US.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,160
Reaction score
17,559
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
What's more important to you:
  • Your/a party's political primacy?
  • An elected office holder's probity?


The question is "What's more important to you: your party's political primacy or elected office holder's probity?" The poll offers the following answer options:
  1. A party's primacy; I belong to a party
  2. A party's primacy; I don't belong to a party
  3. An elected office holder's probity; I don't belong to a party
  4. An elected office holder's probity; I belong to a party
  5. I don't know which of those two is most important to me
  6. I think neither is important


Consider the two options offered and determine which one is most important to you. Be sure to consider the literality and implications of each option.

Mind, I'm not asking you to choose one or the other; the question presumes you value one or the other, though there is an answer option for those who value neither. That said, I asking which, give the totality of your values, you rank higher.

You are saying there is no circumstance in which you would disregard an elected official's probity? For example if Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on her death bed and a liberal running for senate in your district is a total scumbag. That scumbag winning would mean that democrats have a majority in the senate and the republicans can't push through a uber conservative justice. However that scumbag's loss means that the senate is 50/50 with a republican vice president as a tie breaker and Trump is eyeing some conservative judge in his 40s as her replacement. So you are saying nope I am not voting for liberal running for senate because he or she is scumbag? You are either abstaining from voting or voting for the other candidate whose political views may be the polar opposite of your views?
 

rickc

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
8,224
Reaction score
4,397
i just vote against Republicans

they have the worst record as far as what is best for the working/middle class

unfortunately they have been able to label the Democrats as the party of the minority. that precludes white middle/working class people from voting for them. even though the record of the democrats reveals their policies help the very one who are least likely to vote for them.

take the rhetoric out of the equation and research what each party actually does.
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,253
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
i just vote against Republicans

they have the worst record as far as what is best for the working/middle class

unfortunately they have been able to label the Democrats as the party of the minority. that precludes white middle/working class people from voting for them. even though the record of the democrats reveals their policies help the very one who are least likely to vote for them.

take the rhetoric out of the equation and research what each party actually does.

Democrats hate business but love jobs. How do they square that circle?
 

davidhume

Banned
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
255
Reaction score
72
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There are two parties controlling government. I would never vote for a Republican but I can support the conservatism of the Democratic Party.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
How many of you had to look up what “probity” meant? :)
 

davidhume

Banned
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
255
Reaction score
72
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How many of you had to look up what “probity” meant? :)

Me. I knew it had to do with honesty but looked it up. By the way, an editor at Merriam-Webster said many of the words people look up are actually common words.
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,253
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Red:
By "Special Fisherman," are you referring to an outcome resulting from an existential application of the so-called "fisherman's dilemma" borne of the game theory (see page 13 in the linked document; see also prisoner's dilemma) concepts Hardin posited in "The Tragedy of the Commons?"

An investigation that is more like a life’s inquiry as to weather you go to pergatory or not. Kind of a “lets see if she did this.” Peloisi comes to mind. She is worth north of 26 million on her salary. Trading on insider information is their stock in trade.

Not to mention having the environmental lobby on speed dial.
 
Last edited:

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
96,905
Reaction score
81,122
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Top Bottom