American Politics

[shionoro]

Maybe it's unfair, but for me, someone with that kind of past can go dig ditches somewhere for a living or something. They have no business having input on public policy. And it's made worse that he represents the 21st Century Know-Nothing tradition that we can thank Trump for. Liz Cheney is a carpetbager, an Obama-Birther, and an all around backward ghoul but at least she hasn't lost complete touch with reality and knocked up 14 year olds.

I dont want to have the debate about the morality of his actions i think because it is offtopic here, even if my view differs.

However, lets say a capable politician, aged 40-60, who has good policy proposals and no sign of corruption, suddenly sees a story unfold: Someone from his past says he bullied another boy into suicide.
And there is truth to the story, yes, several people say he did bully that boy with 1 or 2 very nasty stories about it that just stick.

I do not think that should play a role. At all. I do not think it should be reported even and i cannot take reporters seriously who invest their time into that kind of thing. And I think doing it destroys (or destroyed) the political discourse in your country.

This story would only matter as part of a larger trend of that politician trying to pressure people into compliance (so keeping on with bullying), but as a story about what he did as a teen more than 20 years ago does not reflect on what kind of person he is right now and should be used against (or for, in other cases) him.

It derails any proper conversation about politics.

 

[xi0]

However, lets say a capable politician, aged 40-60, who has good policy proposals and no sign of corruption, suddenly sees a story unfold: Someone from his past says he bullied another boy into suicide.
And there is truth to the story, yes, several people say he did bully that boy with 1 or 2 very nasty stories about it that just stick.

I do not think that should play a role. At all. I do not think it should be reported even and i cannot take reporters seriously who invest their time into that kind of thing. And I think doing it destroys (or destroyed) the political discourse in your country.

So then what would a politician have to do in their past to warrant it being brought up?

This story would only matter as part of a larger trend of that politician trying to pressure people into compliance (so keeping on with bullying), but as a story about what he did as a teen more than 20 years ago does not reflect on what kind of person he is right now and should be used against (or for, in other cases) him.

It derails any proper conversation about politics.

Politicians are still people, there is only so much separation one should have between the ideas and the person they're coming from. Otherwise why would anyone have any confidence in their conviction?

--- Double Post Merged, May 24, 2021, Original Post Date: May 24, 2021 ---

And I think doing it destroys (or destroyed) the political discourse in your country.

I can think of a laundry list of things that have pushed things in this direction before attempts at holding people accountable

 

[shionoro]

So then what would a politician have to do in their past to warrant it being brought up?

Something that reflect on their political actions right now. Roy Moore for example used his political power to silence his victims.
In any case, it would need to be, in my opinion, something that someone did in their adult life.

I do get it that, for example, if a politician beat their wife that would rightfully be a story, or if someone bullied their coworker to death or something that happened at least when the person is mature. That at least reflects on their character and decisionmaking as an adult person. But some story that happened when they were a teen long ago, or very ugly private conflicts that get exaggerated?
I do not think it should be reported.

Politicians are still people, there is only so much separation one should have between the ideas and the person they're coming from. Otherwise why would anyone have any confidence in their conviction?

Assuming that Bouchard was a very capable politician and, as far as his adult life goes, great human being? Why would his conviction be in question if he did a mistake as an 18 year old but never again later in life got involved with someone younger or treated women badly? I don't see it, much like i would not see it for my theoretical example.

I'd see it if he got involved with a 14 year old right now, but not like this.

I can think of a laundry list of things that have pushed things in this direction before attempts at holding people accountable

It depends on accountable for what. Holding somebody accountable for a corruption scandal? Great. Holding ppl accountable for things from decades ago that happened in their private life? Nah, that is pretty high on the list in my book of things that destroy your discourse. The fact that politicians are reported about as if they were moviestars and having their life and personality be examinated like that is a big problem.

 

[xi0]

I do get it that, for example, if a politician beat their wife that would rightfully be a story, or if someone bullied their coworker to death or something that happened at least when the person is mature. That at least reflects on their character and decisionmaking as an adult person. But some story that happened when they were a teen long ago, or very ugly private conflicts that get exaggerated?
I do not think it should be reported.

It's completely circumstantial and depends on the severity IMO. But I don't think statutory rape/impregnation of a minor or bullying someone to the point of suicide is something that should be treated as wholly irrelevant just because it happened 40 years ago.

Assuming that Bouchard was a very capable politician and, as far as his adult life goes, great human being? Why would his conviction be in question if he did a mistake as an 18 year old but never again later in life got involved with someone younger or treated women badly? I don't see it, much like i would not see it for my theoretical example.

I'd see it if he got involved with a 14 year old right now, but not like this.

I mean, you're assuming things here. What if I assume that he abused this girl and she was profoundly traumatized by it? It happening 40 years ago wouldn't make it less severe.

I don't think you need to be a saint to run for office, but I'd prefer to keep the bar higher.

It depends on accountable for what. Holding somebody accountable for a corruption scandal? Great. Holding ppl accountable for things from decades ago that happened in their private life? Nah, that is pretty high on the list in my book of things that destroy your discourse. The fact that politicians are reported about as if they were moviestars and having their life and personality be examinated like that is a big problem

Time frees them from legal judgment, not anything else. I don't think bringing up someone's judgment when they were an adult is off the table in this case. If it happened within the statute of limitations and the victim was alive he'd certainly be in jail.

I don't think bringing up unsavory pasts is something solely for the gossip magazines, it's about someone's character. If you want to be a public official, expect scrutiny that other lifepaths wouldn't have. I don't think that existing has some sort of profoundly negative impact on politics or political discourse. More often than not, they're simply handled poorly from a public relations standpoint, which is often of greater consequence.

 

[kkck]

That is not my view on it, but i guess its offtopic here on when relationship age gap is definitely abusive.

I do not think it is good when reporters try to find dirt on politicians that is not politically relevant. AT ALL. I thinkt hat is very toxic and leads to political reporting being marginalized in favor of dirty stories that capture the views.
This whole 'who is that person' is kinda of a fetish, not only in politics but also in any high profile reporting.

It is always both political sides trying to find as much dirt as possible and making it a PR fight. Can you find enough dirt on the black man to say he was no angel? Can you find enough dirt on the cop to say he was a definitive psychopath and ticking time bomb?

In my view, this is very destructive. American politicians have to wear a persona front and center to succeed because america is obsessed with personal stories, both good and bad. 'I was that girl' was more important than Harris policies (even if it did not end up working). And it was 'Pocahontas' and snake Emojis that really let Warren's popularity go south. Even tho it did not matter in the slightest for the question of whether they will do good politics.

And because it is so effective, it is even used with lies. Pizzagate, Birthers, Omar's brother. And oftentime, truth mixes with lies and halftruths. Because obviously, it is easy to exaggerate halftruths.
Biden has gaffes --> he is completely demented and does not know where he is.
Biden is a touchy person, both with women and children --> Biden is a pedophile abuser and rapist

Politicians would have to lie less if they didnt know the next step.

If I would be Bouchard, I would have preemptively come up with a story about abortion too, because i know that if i dont, i will be rendered as a pedophile rapist who pushed his childwife to suicide, no matter if the actual truth is far more ambiguous.

The guy in question is a potential house candidate. His job will be to pass legislation in the name of his constituents if it pulls through That's at its barest minimum politically relevant to his district. Which is A LOT.


You are comparing the trump calling people silly nicknames to actual facts that are brought about potential politicians and politicians. Yeah, sure, the pocahontas bit was effective at driving down warren but that is simply not comparable to the stuff with these other creepy asshole. Bringing out actual facts about politicians is simply not character assassination. Apples and oranges...

Or you know, politicians could just not do shitty stuff and if they do suffer the consequences as publicly as their office demands. If a politicians is in a position where he has to lie to cover his asss then, well, pass. Fuck him. He is both unfit and unworthy of the privilege of serving.

Or you know, not run as a potential house member for the GoP (or any party for that matter) if as an 18 you had a 14 year old baby mommy who had an abortion and then committed suicide. And if you have that baggage come clean and apologize, pay your debt to society and THEN run for office. Provide context that makes the case you aren't the guy being made out to be by the story. At least have the decency of trying to make a case that this is a political assassination attempt.

 

[xi0]

Or you know, not run as a potential house member for the GoP (or any party for that matter) if as an 18 you had a 14 year old baby mommy who had an abortion and then committed suicide.

Just to clarify, they didn't abort the pregnancy. He mentioned how he was somewhat estranged from him due to things in his life he "didn't approve of" or something. Given Wyoming and his political affiliation, there's probably some decent guesses that could be made, lol.

 

[Sanity Check]

Joe Biden and Doctor Fauci participated in a 12 minute COVID vaccine segment on this youtube channel I subscribe to.

They're definitely divulging more information and commenting more in depth than they would if the venue were CNN or a media outlet expected to reach more viewers.

--- Double Post Merged, May 26, 2021, Original Post Date: May 24, 2021 ---

Is Biden really spending $7+ trillion.

Seems like a lot of money.

 

[shionoro]

Or you know, not run as a potential house member for the GoP (or any party for that matter) if as an 18 you had a 14 year old baby mommy who had an abortion and then committed suicide. And if you have that baggage come clean and apologize, pay your debt to society and THEN run for office. Provide context that makes the case you aren't the guy being made out to be by the story. At least have the decency of trying to make a case that this is a political assassination attempt.

What would his 'debt' to 'society' be there? I really do not think everyone who did s th wrong in their youth should be barred from political office. And I really do not see any proper reason why that kind of private life should play a role when running for office.

It just means politicians will be less open and even more PR driven than they are right now.

I mean, what is your proposal here? Starting off his House run by going 'oh by the way, there is this statutory rape thing but i will provide some context for you now'?
In a society like america which is so much about sin and punishment that it is absurd at times, that just means a large chunk of people will be barred from public office without there being a rational reason for it. Having dated a 14 year old when you were 18 back then in Wyoming is not a reason to say someone is a bad and irresponsible politician. That guy is, but not for that reason.

 

[kkck]

What would his 'debt' to 'society' be there? I really do not think everyone who did s th wrong in their youth should be barred from political office. And I really do not see any proper reason why that kind of private life should play a role when running for office.

It just means politicians will be less open and even more PR driven than they are right now.

I mean, what is your proposal here? Starting off his House run by going 'oh by the way, there is this statutory rape thing but i will provide some context for you now'?
In a society like america which is so much about sin and punishment that it is absurd at times, that just means a large chunk of people will be barred from public office without there being a rational reason for it. Having dated a 14 year old when you were 18 back then in Wyoming is not a reason to say someone is a bad and irresponsible politician. That guy is, but not for that reason.

In this case I mean it more as the guy having common sense. As in, don't put yourself in a position where journalists have a moral obligation to look for skeletons in closets if you have said skeletons. Sure, he shouldn't be legally barred from office. And he wasn't. Being a position where a sane person wouldn't vote for you isn't being "barred" from office.

As for the bold part... that's just plain sophistry.

As for the debt... The guy did something which by all accounts appears to be a straight up very creepy crime. At a bare minimum an investigation into this adult 18 year old impregnating a barely pubescent 14 year old is rational. It'd be different if he went "I did some bad shit in my youth but I did my time and through hard work I put it behind me". But what we got is more along the lines of "Yeah, I did some bad shit ages ago, got away with it and am telling you now because the story is about to go public and I need to take some measure of control over the narrative".

 

[shionoro]

In this case I mean it more as the guy having common sense. As in, don't put yourself in a position where journalists have a moral obligation to look for skeletons in closets if you have said skeletons. Sure, he shouldn't be legally barred from office. And he wasn't. Being a position where a sane person wouldn't vote for you isn't being "barred" from office.

How is it better to not be legally barred from office but effectively barred from office when people find dirt on you from back then? What is the big difference? You can see the effect: At some point, people stop caring completely about decency.
Because these dirt stories get thrown around so often that you just believe what you want to believe. Which is why people like Trump can win if they just ignore all the skeletons in their closet.

With logic like that, you also invite stuff like Obamagate and, on the flipside, personal stories over policy like 'i was that girl'.
Because you put emphasis on narratives that frame a politician in a certain light independent of his policy proposals instead of far more relevant questions like experience, public record and his proposals.

As for the debt... The guy did something which by all accounts appears to be a straight up very creepy crime. At a bare minimum an investigation into this adult 18 year old impregnating a barely pubescent 14 year old is rational. It'd be different if he went "I did some bad shit in my youth but I did my time and through hard work I put it behind me". But what we got is more along the lines of "Yeah, I did some bad shit ages ago, got away with it and am telling you now because the story is about to go public and I need to take some measure of control over the narrative".

Without knowing what exactly he did (so no details), how would that even matter? What you expect from him is that he goes on stage, without anyone asking, and saying 'by the way I'm a rapist'. That is not rational. That would not make him a better or worse man, it would not make him a better or worse politician, it would just end his career.
The only way out would be, as you outline, to make it his story 'Hey, i did some bad shit in my past but i worked beyond this, vote me now, give an ex offender a chance!". That is really cynical to me, and again is a push for politicians being more narrative than actual person and narratives mattering more than actual policies.

 

[M3J]

How do you know the politician wouldn't try to lower the age of consent or try to make laws that take away what protections women/victims have left? NOr do we know if he's done that again or still does it, or if he'll do something like that and use his position to get away with it. Plus, there are groups of people that will be opposed to certain people having some sorts of power and will dig up dirt, or victims that will speak up because they think/know that the person doesn't deserve power because of how dangerous they are. If you can't handle either, then you shouldn't run, otherwise skeletons will likely be revealed.

 

[shionoro]

How do you know the politician wouldn't try to lower the age of consent or try to make laws that take away what protections women/victims have left? NOr do we know if he's done that again or still does it, or if he'll do something like that and use his position to get away with it. Plus, there are groups of people that will be opposed to certain people having some sorts of power and will dig up dirt, or victims that will speak up because they think/know that the person doesn't deserve power because of how dangerous they are. If you can't handle either, then you shouldn't run, otherwise skeletons will likely be revealed.

Why would he be more likely to do that? Germany's former foreign minister and vice chancellor used to be a left extremist and threw stones, allegedly even a molotovcocktail on cops and was part of a far left militant group. That did not have anything to do with how he conducted himself 40 years later.

Why would someone who dated a 14 year old with 18, 40 years ago, be any more likely to try to take away victim's rights?
You know, that is the kind of logic why republicans have an easy time taking away the voting rights of felons.

 

[M3J]

Because the right are notorious for taking away women's rights and freedom, and they don't care about victims unless it helps their agenda. They can try to make it harder for victims to win against their abusers or get justice. That's different from rebelling against cops and whatnot.

 

[shionoro]

Because the right are notorious for taking away women's rights and freedom, and they don't care about victims unless it helps their agenda. They can try to make it harder for victims to win against their abusers or get justice. That's different from rebelling against cops and whatnot.

The republicans are. That is true. But that is independent from them personally getting it on with younger partners. It isn't like republican women are any better, right?

I think one thing that i cannot reiterate enough is that playing 'private life is politics' tend to hurt democrats far more than republicans and upstanding people far more than the vilest once. Yes, Roy Moore lost over that. Trump didn't and most of the really horrible repubs don't.
This strategy works way better on democrats than republicans. And thus it does not lead to better and more moral people taking political decisions, but the once that either flat out ignore morals or at can lie very well about it.

 

[xi0]

Wasn't really sure where to post it but this was pretty spicy

 

[Charlie]

Apparently it was a fake anon video - anon allegedly said it wasn't them.
I heard this on another program I watched. I Can't verify anything tho.

 

[xi0]

Apparently it was a fake anon video - anon allegedly said it wasn't them.
I heard this on another program I watched. I Can't verify anything tho.

Anonymous is too nebulous to say either way. The channel is verified and has been posting videos since last year. Whoever is acting as them on Twitter is far more suspect.

 

[Sanity Check]

Wasn't really sure where to post it but this was pretty spicy

https://www.ccn.com/elon-musk-pot-stunt-joe-rogan-smoked-5-million-taxpayer/

Elon Musk’s Pot Stunt on Joe Rogan Smoked $5 Million in US Taxpayer Money

Elon Musk's SpaceX Accused Of Hiring Discrimination, DOJ Investigates Complaints

Elon Musk's aerospace company had previously been accused of fostering a racist work environment and discriminating against certain employees.

www.ibtimes.com

China bans Tesla cars in military complexes on concerns about cameras - Bloomberg News

The Chinese military has banned Tesla Inc's cars from military complexes and housing compounds because of concerns about sensitive data being collected by cameras built into the vehicles, Bloomberg News reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter. https://bloom.bg/30UmU1M) Tesla...

finance.yahoo.com

Short Sellers Who Tried To Kill Tesla Are Going Bankrupt


Just another day to Elon.

 

[xi0]

Let's be like his simps and glorify him for all the wrong reasons

 

[Knight of Stalwart Heart]

Some people act like he's Tony Stark IRL or something when he's a rich dude who's good at marketing (or atleast that's how it seems to me)