- 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:
- A party's primacy; I belong to a party
- A party's primacy; I don't belong to a party
- An elected office holder's probity; I don't belong to a party
- An elected office holder's probity; I belong to a party
- I don't know which of those two is most important to me
- 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.
Red: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.
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.
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:
- A party's primacy; I belong to a party
- A party's primacy; I don't belong to a party
- An elected office holder's probity; I don't belong to a party
- An elected office holder's probity; I belong to a party
- I don't know which of those two is most important to me
- 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.
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.
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.
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:
- A party's primacy; I belong to a party
- A party's primacy; I don't belong to a party
- An elected office holder's probity; I don't belong to a party
- An elected office holder's probity; I belong to a party
- I don't know which of those two is most important to me
- 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.
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:
- A party's primacy; I belong to a party
- A party's primacy; I don't belong to a party
- An elected office holder's probity; I don't belong to a party
- An elected office holder's probity; I belong to a party
- I don't know which of those two is most important to me
- 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 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.
How many of you had to look up what “probity” meant?
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?"
How many of you had to look up what “probity” meant?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?