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

[Rexedgar]

How many of you had to look up what “probity” meant?

.......every other word in some of them eyesores.......:doh

 

[Phys251]

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.

This. I got into an argument the other day (not around here) with a "progressive" who was trying to fling purity tests at me as if they counted for anything.

What he stubbornly refused to understand is that the most progressive political platform in the world will never come to be if our democracy itself dies.

 

[davidhume]

This. I got into an argument the other day (not around here) with a "progressive" who was trying to fling purity tests at me as if they counted for anything.

What he stubbornly refused to understand is that the most progressive political platform in the world will never come to be if our democracy itself dies.

Being pragmatic lead to Trump's election. Time to rethink this.

 

[eohrnberger]

There are two parties controlling government. I would never vote for a Republican but I can support the conservatism of the Democratic Party.

"conservatism of the Democratic Party"

Such a thing exists? :lamo:lamo:lamo

 

[davidhume]

"conservatism of the Democratic Party"

Such a thing exists? :lamo:lamo:lamo

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Xelor]

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.

Is that a "yes" or a "no?"

 

[Phys251]

Being pragmatic lead to Trump's election. Time to rethink this.

Nope. A divided Left was a major contributor to his "win." And Russia knew it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

: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.

I think we all judge Trump as a despicable human being based upon his own statements and actions. One needs to go no further than Trump's twitter feed to make such a judgement, but of course, he gives us all much more than that. He is like the rare sociopath that can't hide it. Your post though is a perfect example of how adept his dwindling supporters are at rationalization though.

 

[Xelor]

Off-Topic:

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."

[Note: "Special Fisherman" refers to:]

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.​

Red:
Please identify specifically the legal exemptions you have in mind and that pertain to something having to do with pecuniary matters.

• Ethics in Government Act -- Requires, among other things, Congress members to submit annual financial disclosure forms such as this: Nancy Pelosi Financial Disclosure (May 2017).
• Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act
  • Capitol Losses: The Mediocre Performance of Congressional Stock Portfolios
    Based on Eggers and Hainmueller's research, in the aggregate US legislators do not, via their investment portfolios, enrich themselves any more effectively than do the general public; moreover, members of Congress' investment portfolios, on average, seem to underperform the market by 2%-3%.
    
    "We find no evidence of either informed trading or above-market portfolio returns for Congress as a whole or any subset of members. In fact, the average investor in Congress underperformed the market by 2-3% annually during this period [2004-2008], suggesting that a substantial majority of members would have financially benefited from replacing their stock holdings with passive index funds. Our research suggests that widespread political "insider trading" in Congress is more myth than reality.

The Ethics in Government Act, as amended by the STOCK Act, requires members of Congress to file periodic transaction reports (due to the Ethics Committee within 30 days of receiving notice of the transaction, but not more than 45 days after the transaction) that disclose each purchase, sale or exchange of stocks, bonds or other securities and assets the member makes (individually or with a partner) when the amount of the transaction exceeds $1,000. In light of those reporting requirements, which of Pelosi's (or some other member's) transactions are you alleging occurred as part of an illegal use of insider information?
​

 

[Ahlevah]

I said probity. That's why I voted for Trump instead of Clinton.

 

[Myview]

I tend to place more faith in the probity of Democrats so I was honest and said political party has primacy with me.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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.

If offered the choice between an incompetent, dishonest, unreliable Democrat and a competent, honest, reliable Republican, I'd vote for the Republican.

• What would you do?

If offered the choice between an incompetent, dishonest, unreliable Republican and a competent, honest, reliable Democrat, I'd vote for the Democrat.

• What would you do?

If offered the choice between Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump, I'd vote for "The Monster Loony Garden Party" candidate.

• What would you do?

 

[Xelor]

If offered the choice between an incompetent, dishonest, unreliable Democrat and a competent, honest, reliable Republican, I'd vote for the Republican.

• What would you do?

If offered the choice between an incompetent, dishonest, unreliable Republican and a competent, honest, reliable Democrat, I'd vote for the Democrat.

• What would you do?

If offered the choice between Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump, I'd vote for "The Monster Loony Garden Party" candidate.

• What would you do?

I can't attest to what unspecified individual I'd vote for against a generically identified opponent, but I can tell you that:

• Blue --> I wouldn't vote for the Democrat
• Pink --> I wouldn't vote for the Republican

Red:
Asked and answered, so to speak...ages ago:

...
I voted for Ford, Reagan, and then Bush [XLI] the first time. Then I voted for Clinton, and wished I had not voted for Bush II the second time around. I willingly voted for Obama and I voted for Clinton II. I voted for her because Trump strikes me as a contemptible orgy of vulgarity masquerading, with the natural grace of an intoxicated beluga whale, as a human being who, when it comes to deep public policy awareness and integrity, is all hat and no cattle, and who surrounds himself with people who, when he lies, they swear to it, he believes it, and has, moreover, the temerity to presume the rest of us are too myopic to tell he's anything other than a miserable scoundrel and a naive maladjusted libertine delinquent overcome with delusions of adequacy.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I can't attest to what unspecified individual I'd vote for against a generically identified opponent, but I can tell you that:

Blue --> I wouldn't vote for the Democrat

Since your choice was binary (i.e. EITHER Republican OR Democrat), if you voted at all, then you'd "vote for the Republican", isn't that right?

Pink --> I wouldn't vote for the Republican

Since your choice was binary (i.e. EITHER Republican OR Democrat), if you voted at all, then you'd "vote for the Democrat", isn't that right?

Red:Asked and answered, so to speak...ages ago:

When offered the choice of being served fecal material either baked or fried, the third option is "No thanks." - which is the option that I preferred.

Yes, Ms. Clinton is eminently more qualified for the job than Mr. Trump is, but she would have been just as destructive for the United States of America as Mr. Trump is.