GOP insanity containment thread 3: more human than strom thurman

[Melkerson]

@Soulman

not vote for a politician because they cheated once,

I don’t think anyone means that literally. See Kerowo’s post above.

[Soulman]

Agree that that would be a reasonable assumption. However, this post is pretty black and white imo:

@Krayz

And regardless of what the behavior is, breaking it is disqualifying for public office if they can’t do simple impulse control privately.

Edit: fair if he didn’t mean it as absolute ofc, just sounds that way to me.

And in general it’s obvious some posters have higher moral standards for their politicians than I and Clovis do.

[Melkerson]

@Soulman

Agree that that would be a reasonable assumption. However, this post is pretty black and white imo:

So was this one

@kerowo

I have no problem disqualifying someone from office if they can’t remain faithful to their wife or partner.

And look where we ended up:

@kerowo

Probably wouldn’t stop me from voting for Harris, actually, wouldn’t be close to costing me my vote.

[kerowo]

In our lifetime it was disqualifying for public office. Gary Hart comes to mind. I’m alright with that. Lots of things were disqualifying for public office before Trump and I’m probably alright with most of that coming back.

That being said, I hate one issue voters like Clovis likes fracking, so it would have to be a special case before I didn’t vote for someone only because of cheating.

[kerowo]

Two different things: You’re in office and caught cheating on your wife is different than someone running for office and found to have cheated on their wife.

One is handled through existing laws, mores, and procedure. The other is handled by the decisions of individual voters. (given current laws, mores, and procedures)

[WAR]

If the Democratic Party secretly disqualified anyone who had cheated on their spouse from entering primaries, would their overall quality of candidate improve? Assume perfect information and “cheating” requires a significant betrayal of the spouse.

• Much better
• A little better
• The same or worse

[CanadaMatt3004]

Depends on whether you swallow.

Hey-o!

[AllTheCheese]

I voted much better but it depends on what you mean by candidate quality. People who cheat on their spouses will on average be better bullshitters, and that is an asset on the campaign trail. But if candidate quality refers to someone who will be a principled actor when elected, it’s not close ime.

[Soulman]

This is completely fair. That’s no fun

[Soulman]

Sounds like a process that would be ripe for abuse. Like agreeing on “significant” would probably be impossible. Should it matter if it happened 30 years ago?

[clovis8]

GOP insanity containment thread 3: more human than strom thurman

Probably wouldn’t stop me from voting for Harris, actually, wouldn’t be close to costing me my vote. Pragmatically, David Duke being in office is worse than a democrat that cheated on their spouse. It gets to be more interesting if the difference in the candidates isn’t so stark. I can’t think of a moderate republican that would make it that interesting, but if the choice was closer, or in a primary or something, I could see it making the difference. It is one of those things that is only i…

It’s reasonable. Like all internet debate everyone starts out militant and then normal discussion reveals there is nuance.

GOP insanity containment thread 3: more human than strom thurman

Agree that that would be a reasonable assumption. However, this post is pretty black and white imo: Edit: fair if he didn’t mean it as absolute ofc, just sounds that way to me. And in general it’s obvious some posters have higher moral standards for their politicians than I and Clovis do.

It’s not that I have low moral standards for politicians it’s that I strongly believe in judging people based on how we know humans act instead of idealized standards drawn from religious doctrine or other silly social norms.

GOP insanity containment thread 3: more human than strom thurman

In our lifetime it was disqualifying for public office. Gary Hart comes to mind. I’m alright with that. Lots of things were disqualifying for public office before Trump and I’m probably alright with most of that coming back. That being said, I hate one issue voters like Clovis likes fracking, so it would have to be a special case before I didn’t vote for someone only because of cheating.

I know you are joking but I obviously don’t love fracking. Also agree one issue voting is the most intellectually lazy position imaginable.

GOP insanity containment thread 3: more human than strom thurman

I voted much better but it depends on what you mean by candidate quality. People who cheat on their spouses will on average be better bullshitters, and that is an asset on the campaign trail. But if candidate quality refers to someone who will be a principled actor when elected, it’s not close ime.

Now that we have moved to the nuanced stage of this discussion let me ask this. Couple is together for a couple decades. He gets a debilitating illness that eliminates his sex drive but he also buys into the idea that cheating is some massive moral sin. They love each other and he needs her for daily support due to his illness. She still has a sex drive and decides the only logical choice is to cheat to satisfy her need for sex because she doesn’t want to leave him.

This is a moral failing? Should she go without sex for life? Leave him?

This is why I think the idea that someone cheated is a crazy political filter because we have no idea what the situation is in another persons relationship.

All this said generally speaking, obviously cheating is bad and in most cases it’s far better to negotiate an open relationship than to cheat but like all things in life it’s just not black and white.

[superuberbob]

Wouldn’t make a difference to me.

As for Robinson, the grossness of the posts isn’t the point. It’s that he’s posting on porn forums in the first place. I mean it isn’t quite as bad as 8chan or KiwiFarms but a person with his judgment shouldn’t be running anything.

[LFS]

@superuberbob

As for Robinson, the grossness of the posts isn’t the point. It’s that he’s posting on porn forums in the first place.

Man, you make one post about piss play with your sister in law and people will just forget you declared yourself a Nazi and said you wanted to own slaves.

[superuberbob]

Doubt anybody forgot that. He just said the quiet part out loud. That’s nothing new for Republican politics.

[clovis8]

You kid but this is actually true in America.

[CanadaMatt3004]

TIL that “saying the quiet part loud” is another Simpsonsism. We cant seem to find a recorded instance of it prior to “A Star is Burns”

[Cactus]

So it’s a reliable indicator of those stupid enough to get caught

I like leaders who don’t get caught

[Marksman]

Only if not fried.

[amead]

Call me old fashioned, but I think you shouldn’t do things that would make your spouse really, really, really sad. Even if you have a big ol’ boner.

[clovis8]

Impressively silly and childlike simplification of a nuanced discussion.