politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
"Grand scheme" nope, immediately wrong. You want to make things better in some big dramatic way, you want to be the face of a movement, you want a leadership position, don't commit war crimes and rape people. Period.
You want to earn redemption and forgiveness having done those things? You contribute to other people's movements and efforts. You quietly support from the background.
The vast majority of people who are actually working to make the world a better place receive little to no recognition. They never get their name up in lights, even if they do good their entire lives without killing and raping first. Now, you think the killer-for-hire is somehow entitled to being one of the few people who get recognition, who represent the movement? That they're too good to do the quiet and humble work that non-murderers do? Where do you get off?
Whether it is or not is irrelevant, the point is that Platner shouldn't be one of the figures leading and representing that effort.
So all veterans, if they want to redeem themselves in the eyes of MLs, must do what's the equivalent of community service in dissuading the youth from joining the military, providing mutual aide for other veterans, and maybe 10-20 other things before they get moral consideration from the left.
Any veterans that don't immediately do that after leaving military service after as little as 1 tour and instead go on to do other normal economic things with their time like oyster farming, trucking, construction, whatever makes their living is not good enough for doing anything associated with political office.
Do these same purity tests apply to normal folks, the peasantry class, that have no military experience? What if some of those peasants do crimes like arson or domestic violence or murder? Do they also get banned from political office forever, even if they give back to their communities? How much do they have to give back? Are the requirements in years? Or should we measure people's emotions and cognitions to see if they've really learned their lesson? Do all leaders need to be pure, untainted lab rats grown into wealthy families that see no hardship?
Purity tests are the cancer of the left. There needs to be space for people to recognize their wrongs, and try to do better about it. Saying whether HOW they do better is right or wrong is arbitrary. Veterans that see how bad the MIC is would be best suited to know how to dismantle it. Former inmates that see how bad the Prison Industrial Complex (PIC) is would be best suited to know how to dismantle it.
Obviously it's better if vets, former inmates, etc. do all of the above. But I don't think we should rule out people if they don't, especially if there's no better alternative. The best thing to do in these dilemmas is find better candidates and support them. Without that, viability and policies is the only way forward.
What does "moral consideration" mean here, exactly? The only thing I've talked about is leadership positions. Apparently, in your mind, saying I don't want someone in a leadership position is the same as saying I don't mind if they're taken out and shot.
Correct. Although, to be clear, in this case, we're talking about someone who did four terms and then signed up as a killer-for-hire with Blackwater.
Yes? Duh, why wouldn't they? Are there a lot of arsonists holding office where you live? Do you think we should be electing ICE agents?
The only double standard you can find here is that the same crimes that would be obviously and automatically disqualifying if committed domestically are somehow excused, if not admired when committed abroad.
That's exactly what I am doing! Obviously, if you fuck up then continue seeking power for yourself, you haven't learned shit. Saying "I'm sorry" when it's politically advantageous is meaningless.
Which they can absolutely do. From a non-leadership position.
Who is Graham Platner's campaign manager? Can you name them without Googling? If Platner were in a role like that, I wouldn't really care. But apparently that means I think he'd "unworthy of moral consideration" in your ridiculous framing.
Moral consideration includes whether the person has attractive morals to be considered a leader.
Anybody that commits a crime, that rehabilitates and demonstrates social behavior and not a social behavior, should be given the chance to run for public office. Lifetime bans from public office can be abused.
ICE agents that change their minds, leave the force, and show rehabilitated behaviors should absolutely be considered for public office.
None of what I'm saying that we should pick these folks over others that have the same policy views WITHOUT this same baggage. In my view the baggage shouldn't be deal breakers, because baggage is nuanced and deserves contextual understanding.
People demonstrate whether they've learned about their past wrongs through their actions. Speaking truth to power is an action, and it's better than nothing when the political parties in USA are rotten to the core. Maybe you Euroids and third worldists have better choices in political candidates. In the US, our choices for some races are Zionists, rapists, white supremacists, etc. The best we can do (in certain areas of USA) in the big dystopian 226 is rally behind people who do say the right things. Until someone better shows up, which wasn't the case in Maine until this Platner rape crisis and the alternative, Troy Jackson.
Who is Platner's campaign manager? Who is Bernie's? Zohran's? AOC's? I have no fucking clue because I'm not a political autist masking as an ML.
That's not what the phrase "moral consideration" means. "Moral consideration" means, like, if they're in a trolley problem next to an empty track, it's wrong to kill them. If there's a mosquito on one track, it probably doesn't warrant moral consideration, so it's not important to save it.
Hard disagree. Why are you so deadset on getting people with questionable loyalties and character into leadership roles? It's self-sabotage.
Completely ridiculous.
Yes, exactly!
What the fuck? Absolutely not!
People demonstrate their character by actual actions. Which is why, someone whose character has been demonstrated as bad through bad actions should be expected to redeem themselves through actions and not just saying nice things.
I mean, seriously? "People demonstrate their character through actions" means nothing if you're counting "talking" as an "action." The whole point of that phrase is that talk is cheap!
I have absolutely no idea where you pulled that one from. I'm an American.
That's literally the point, dumbass. The campaign manager could be murderer or rapist (as you are so intent to allow into high-level positions for some bizarre reason) and it wouldn't cause nearly as many problems. Like, tbh it wouldn't be great to have such people in such roles, but Jesus Christ, at least keep them out of the top positions! It's like you're trying to tank the campaign or get co-opted!