Zone1 Do the moral and ethical standards of a politician matter to you or is it just important that they are your team ?

[ActionJackson]

First of all, there were literally thousands of treaties signed by the colonists and later US ambassadors to the natives.
So then, YES the natives are able to produce the "title" to the land and can show that we stole it.

But clearly if a tribe is illiterate and has no paperwork, that does NOT give anyone the right to murder them and take their land.

Killings went both directions. The natives spent plenty of time killing whites as well as other natives.

As for the treaties, can you say definitively that the natives didn't break their agreements as often as anyone else did? I know whites are supposed to be the villains according to the official narrative, but I'm more interested in facts that opinions.

 

[initforme]

Morality and immense wealth have never coexisted.

 

[Soupnazi630]

First of all, there were literally thousands of treaties signed by the colonists and later US ambassadors to the natives.
So then, YES the natives are able to produce the "title" to the land and can show that we stole it.

But clearly if a tribe is illiterate and has no paperwork, that does NOT give anyone the right to murder them and take their land.

No they are not dumbass a treaty is not a title.
\

 

[WinterBorn]

It matters very much. It shows whether they can be trusted.

If a politician cheats on their spouse, they have broken a sacred vow. If that vow, before God, is worthless, what is their oath to the country worth?

 

[Leo123]

I think its hman nature to look more kindly on someone who holds similar opinions to yourself.
But is there a line that you cannot cross ?
What is that line ?
If biden is convicted of any offences would you still excuse him ? Similar with Trump.

If you do excuse their faults are you not then partly responsible for their actions ?
This is not party specific. All parties do it, everywhere.
Would we get better politicians if we held them to higher standards ?

You neglect to include that American politics today is not a fair playing field because Democrats have co-opted the DOJ and the MSM. Your question therefore, is irrelevant and naive and not worth of discussing.

 

[hjmick]

I think its hman nature to look more kindly on someone who holds similar opinions to yourself.
But is there a line that you cannot cross ?
What is that line ?
If biden is convicted of any offences would you still excuse him ? Similar with Trump.

If you do excuse their faults are you not then partly responsible for their actions ?
This is not party specific. All parties do it, everywhere.
Would we get better politicians if we held them to higher standards ?

It's morals, ethics, and what they stand for. If I have a team, it's team U.S.A.

This partisan bullshit is for losers.

 

[buttercup]

It matters very much. It shows whether they can be trusted.

If a politician cheats on their spouse, they have broken a sacred vow. If that vow, before God, is worthless, what is their oath to the country worth?

THANK YOU! I've been saying that for years. What's sad to me is how so-called 'conservatives' these days don't seem to care one whit about that anymore. Instead it's just "rah rah go team!" football mentality. People are guided by partisanship instead of principles. (Well not everyone, just the airheads.)

 

[Unkotare]

I think its hman nature to look more kindly on someone who holds similar opinions to yourself.
But is there a line that you cannot cross ?
What is that line ?
If biden is convicted of any offences would you still excuse him ? Similar with Trump.

If you do excuse their faults are you not then partly responsible for their actions ?
This is not party specific. All parties do it, everywhere.
Would we get better politicians if we held them to higher standards ?

This from the ghoul ^^^ who wished for the death of those who disagree with him politically?

 

[MisterBeale]

and you are wrong....the left want centralized control by government, which is the only way to get tax payer funded college, transportation and healthcare....all of which are low quality and poorly run.

The Right in America is decentralization....that is why we support federalism....the separation of powers, and checks and balances on the branches of government....

No, actually, he is not wrong.

MLK was not on the right. A lot of folks that are conservatives, like to claim him though. They habitually misunderstand his political philosophy.
Georgism/Mutualism, are typically thought of, as being on the left. The real problem we have here though, is the politics, and economics, are two different subjects of study.

The dirgisme/soft economic fascism/corporatism of modern state capitalism, which is practiced in both the west and in China, tend to suppress understanding of political science.

Adam Smith, and the nation's founders, were known as classical liberals as well. They wanted as small of government as possible, but some of them, felt that certain functions of government could be handled by a central government according to Smith's theory, about taxing land values.

Taxing the labor of men? That is against the idea of liberalism, it really is. . . .

We have another member on the board that is on the far left, that understands this;
georgephillip

Capitalism is NOT Democratic: Democracy is NOT Capitalist

'd rater be "exploited" by capitalism than have a share of the communal meal. MAGA yet?

www.usmessageboard.com

"The source of the problem has to do with government intervention, not the free market.

Adam Smith and many economists have already solved this problem, but powerful oligarchs have prevented the implementation of the solution.

" . . It was Adam Smith who first noted the efficiency and distributional properties of a land value tax in his book The Wealth of Nations.[11]


". . . Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent. Both ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expenses of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps, the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them. [...] Nothing can be more reasonable than that a fund which owes its existence to the good government of the state should be taxed peculiarly, or should contribute something more than the greater part of other funds, towards the support of that government."
— Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 2

Georgism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SweetSue92]

I think its hman nature to look more kindly on someone who holds similar opinions to yourself.
But is there a line that you cannot cross ?
What is that line ?
If biden is convicted of any offences would you still excuse him ? Similar with Trump.

If you do excuse their faults are you not then partly responsible for their actions ?
This is not party specific. All parties do it, everywhere.
Would we get better politicians if we held them to higher standards ?

As I have said so many times here:

Trump is terrible with women. By all accounts, a terrible husband and a creep when he talks about us. It's a character flaw, and not a small one. GRANTED.

As I have also said: I would never choose him for pastor, husband, friend, son-in-law, etc. GRANTED

I voted for him for PRESIDENT. It's a job.

He did a good job at that. Do I wish we had someone with Trump's presidency and without his character flaws? Sure. Did we? Nope. It was pretty much a binary choice.

It will never stop being ironically funny to me that "liberals" vote like Puritans, apparently. These people must be Morally Pure or they can't be leaders of the executive branch. When did this happen to the American Left?

At any rate, it looks like Joe Biden is also a man of great personal flaws AND actually benefited from selling our nation out. Literally. So there's that.

 

[MisterBeale]

If biden is convicted of any offences would you still excuse him ? Similar with Trump.

The problem, as I see it, is we are moving into a new phase in human social/economic/government history.

This period in history, can be best drawn a parallel to the early period in the US history, right after our independence.

There were two schools of thought, the Federalists, and the Anti-Federalists. Both interest factions, were being largely propelled by wealthy merchant elites, who funded information outlets, politicians, and interest groups.

Today, globally, we have the uni-polar, "globalists," or the "internationalists," who support the western controlled international institutions. And? It really makes no difference whether these crown supported, Vatican supported, and Zionist supported institutions, which give the people of the west their version of truth, and factual narratives or not, they have an agenda.

Then, there is every other nation on the planet, who are tired of having their national policies dictated to them, and their resources and labor extracted from them at less than equitable terms. Though, this uni-polar world order, has, through the institutions of ESG metrics, tried very hard to make the playing field more equitable, if not market based.

We are seeing conflicts in places like Syria, Ukraine in Haiti & Africa. This will not stop till this vision for a world order is decided.

The fact is, the folks that actually CONTROL these metrics, are still the same old players. And this is why we get conflicting narratives and conflicting "facts."


So then, there is now an opposing movement both within, and without of the old world order, more commonly known as the NWO. . this is the multilateral, or multi-polar world order, struggling to emerge, and the typical players are now trying to solidify their centuries hold on power, and make those systems more resilient than ever. This, IMO, seems to be why we are seeing a fever pitch of social-cultural-political internal conflict in the west.

So this game, is for all the marbles, and politicians? Are more likely than not, going to use emotional rhetoric, than to tell you what is really going on. And they are more likely, probably? Like always, not going to tell the truth. None of them are going to be truthful or ethical IMO. Who the hell really knows in the end though. . . . ????

This might be why, we are now seeing political systems of law and order, now, break down in the west.


What does Biden getting convicted mean? Or Trump getting convicted mean?
Try to remember, during the Federalist/Anti-Federalist period, we had our politicians having duels, and our first secretary of the Treasury and author of the majority of the Federalist papers was shot in a duel during that period. . . So, this type of political conflict? meh, it isn't anything new, it really isn't. Who is to say, what is moral and ethical?


IMO? Some of the offenses that our politicians had committed in the past, were probably far worse, and probably, it was better that folks did not even know about them. . .

But when opposing political parties, who now have differing world views about America's future, and place in that world, are now using the "law," as a political cudgel? What does that mean for the rest of our nation?



Is this really, about, "the law?"

The Law (Bastiat book) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Frédéric Bastiat The Law​

 

[initforme]

Morals and wealth do not coexist.
Morals and politics have never existed.
If people even considered morals they'd never get too vote.
3 irrefutable truths.

 

[ActionJackson]

Morals and wealth do not coexist.
Morals and politics have never existed.
If people even considered morals they'd never get too vote.
3 irrefutable truths.

I generally agree, but I think that there are exceptions to all the above. But mankind can never be fully "moral" or "righteous." We're fallen, imperfect beings.

 

[2aguy]

Morals and wealth do not coexist.
Morals and politics have never existed.
If people even considered morals they'd never get too vote.
3 irrefutable truths.

Wrong, morals and wealth can coexist...only a marxist think they can't.

 

[Concerned American]

if we make politicians responsible for their crimes when they cause horror, things would be better

example...there are probably 10 politicians in the 50th state should be executed for incinerating over 1000 people
schiff should be shot to death by a firing squad for his russia and impeachment hoax

I find the OP moot. There are NO moral politicians in the WORLD today. They are all corrupt, immoral pieces of excrement. It has been this way for at least a hundred years with the only difference being that immorality, corruption and crime are so much easier to discover and disseminate news of than ever before. Statesmen and people of strong moral fiber are either nonexistent or they are hiding in the wings to avoid the inevitable character attacks by the opposition.

 

[2aguy]

I find the OP moot. There are NO moral politicians in the WORLD today. They are all corrupt, immoral pieces of excrement. It has been this way for at least a hundred years with the only difference being that immorality, corruption and crime are so much easier to discover and disseminate news of than ever before. Statesmen and people of strong moral fiber are either nonexistent or they are hiding in the wings to avoid the inevitable character attacks by the opposition.

There have never been moral politicians....they are all narcissists.........they are mercenaries that are out for themselves.......you have to pick one that at least will attempt to support a tiny part of what you believe because that is pretty much all you can get from them....

 

[initforme]

Wrong, morals and wealth can coexist...only a marxist think they can't.

But you cannot provide any examples of where they do coexist.

 

[DudleySmith]

Would we get better politicians if we held them to higher standards ?

They already have the same standards as the people who voted for them. If they're sleazy and corrupt, guess what, look in the mirror for the reason. A better idea is forcing politicians to represent the peoples' needs and wants, not their own. That way there is no need to worry about ther morals or beleifs or anything else about them.

 

[DudleySmith]

There have never been moral politicians....they are all narcissists.........they are mercenaries that are out for themselves.

So they're just like voters, who vote for their own se;f-interests and screw everybody else. So yes, you're right, they all do in fact represent the public that elected them.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I find the OP moot. There are NO moral politicians in the WORLD today. They are all corrupt, immoral pieces of excrement. It has been this way for at least a hundred years with the only difference being that immorality, corruption and crime are so much easier to discover and disseminate news of than ever before. Statesmen and people of strong moral fiber are either nonexistent or they are hiding in the wings to avoid the inevitable character attacks by the opposition.

Jeremy Corbun seems a decent sort of guy. He doesnt accept donors cash and makes jam on his day off.