• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Personal Lives Matter?

Should a politicians personal life be taken into account?


  • Total voters
    32

phildozer9121

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
147
Reaction score
61
Location
Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I was listening to NPR today at work and an interview came on that I thought was very interesting.

Here's what's going on:


The gist of it is, this guy, Narendra Modi, is running for prime minister in India with the persuasive platform that because he is living the bachelor life, he will have more time and ability to devote himself to the job. It turns out he actually still has a wife, although he contends that the marriage was loveless and purely a business relationship, which based on the limited evidence presented, seems reasonably likely to be true. What really got me thinking was when the interviewer was speaking with a supporter of Modi, and asking her about how this recent revelation might affect his chances or anyone's opinion of him.

I can't find the transcript of the interview, but basically she was saying, 'why would his personal life matter when we have so many other problems at hand?' The interviewer countered with something like, 'well, shouldn't it matter?'

And that's the question, should it matter?

It seems to me that when these politicians get busted in the US, your anthony weiners, your john edwardssss, your kissing congressmen etc. they aren't kicked out because they're bad politicians (partisan feelings aside) but simply because of a misstep in their personal lives. I'd also point out that there are probably plenty of politicians, good and bad, that probably did these things and got away with it. Look at Thomas Jefferson and all his slave babies.
And, I think with the advent of social media these kinds of things will only become more prevalent when the younger people start getting into office and the things they put on facebook/twitter/DP fourms ten years ago will come back to haunt them.

Bill Clinton was president during one of the most prosperous times in US history, and he was almost removed from office for getting a BJ. The current president of France, Francois Hollande is in the middle of some serious soap opera business right now as well, yet few french consider that something revealing about his effectiveness. Do Americans put too much stock into it, assuming that it is some non-criminal aspect of their personal lives?
 
Last edited:
I was listening to NPR today at work and an interview came on that I thought was very interesting.

Here's what's going on:


The gist of it is, this guy, Narendra Modi, is running for prime minister in India with the persuasive platform that because he is living the bachelor life, he will have more time and ability to devote himself to the job. It turns out he actually still has a wife, although he contends that the marriage was loveless and purely a business relationship, which based on the limited evidence presented, seems reasonably likely to be true. What really got me thinking was when the interviewer was speaking with a supporter of Modi, and asking her about how this recent revelation might affect his chances or anyone's opinion of him.

I can't find the transcript of the interview, but basically she was saying, 'why would his personal life matter when we have so many other problems at hand?' The interviewer countered with something like, 'well, shouldn't it matter?'

And that's the question, should it matter?

It seems to me that when these politicians get busted in the US, your anthony weiners, your john edwardssss, your kissing congressmen etc. they aren't kicked out because they're bad politicians (partisan feelings aside) but simply because of a misstep in their personal lives. I'd also point out that there are probably plenty of politicians, good and bad, that probably did these things and got away with it. Look at Thomas Jefferson and all his slave babies.
And, I think with the advent of social media these kinds of things will only become more prevalent when the younger people start getting into office and the things they put on facebook/twitter/DP fourms ten years ago will come back to haunt them.

Bill Clinton was president during one of the most prosperous times in US history, and he was almost removed from office for getting a BJ. The current president of France, Francois Hollande is in the middle of some serious soap opera business right now as well, yet few french consider that something revealing about his effectiveness. Do Americans put too much stock into it, assuming that it is some non-criminal aspect of their personal lives?

Maybe. I suppose it is what one thinks is relevant. It didn't bother me if Clinton got a BJ in the White House. What did was his lack of taste when one considers JFK was laying Marilyn Monroe and the best Billy Boy can do is Monica. FDR was a womanizer too, you can throw LBJ into that category.

But I think it has to do with how politics or political campaigns are run now a days. Both sides try to dig up as much dirt as possible and then throw mud at each other. Ideas, solutions, visions mean little to nothing. It is what happen when candidate A was twelve years old and lit up a joint.
 
It depends. If someone is against doing something and then does it themselves, yes it should matter.

For instance if a politicians is caught cheating on their spouse I think that normally is just between them and their spouse, however, if the politicians rallies and spouts against cheating on spouses and then does it themselves they should be held accountable.
 
Behavior in personal life can indicate potential issues if given power.
 
Integrity is an important value in a person. So is a person's morals. If a person is a piece of **** who lies to his or her spouse then why would you trust them to be honest with you? If they don't respect a person that they love enough to not screw that person over, why would you you trust them not to screw you over? If they put their own needs above that of their family why would you trust them to put the needs of the country over their personal desires? These things matter because it shows the character of the person. The person we are entrusting to lead our country.


.
 
I was listening to NPR today at work and an interview came on that I thought was very interesting.

Here's what's going on:


The gist of it is, this guy, Narendra Modi, is running for prime minister in India with the persuasive platform that because he is living the bachelor life, he will have more time and ability to devote himself to the job. It turns out he actually still has a wife, although he contends that the marriage was loveless and purely a business relationship, which based on the limited evidence presented, seems reasonably likely to be true. What really got me thinking was when the interviewer was speaking with a supporter of Modi, and asking her about how this recent revelation might affect his chances or anyone's opinion of him.

I can't find the transcript of the interview, but basically she was saying, 'why would his personal life matter when we have so many other problems at hand?' The interviewer countered with something like, 'well, shouldn't it matter?'

And that's the question, should it matter?

It seems to me that when these politicians get busted in the US, your anthony weiners, your john edwardssss, your kissing congressmen etc. they aren't kicked out because they're bad politicians (partisan feelings aside) but simply because of a misstep in their personal lives. I'd also point out that there are probably plenty of politicians, good and bad, that probably did these things and got away with it. Look at Thomas Jefferson and all his slave babies.
And, I think with the advent of social media these kinds of things will only become more prevalent when the younger people start getting into office and the things they put on facebook/twitter/DP fourms ten years ago will come back to haunt them.

Bill Clinton was president during one of the most prosperous times in US history, and he was almost removed from office for getting a BJ. The current president of France, Francois Hollande is in the middle of some serious soap opera business right now as well, yet few french consider that something revealing about his effectiveness. Do Americans put too much stock into it, assuming that it is some non-criminal aspect of their personal lives?

Unfortunately...Christian ethics underlie American morality, leading to powerful hypocrisy.

There are some aspects of personal conduct that can indicate corruption in an individual....sex life is not one of them.
 
Would you hire a babysitter known for child molestation?
Would you hire a cashier known for stealing money?
Would you hire a roofer known for bailing on the job before it was finished?

What a person does in their personal life is the de facto #1 qualifying/disqualifying measurement in terms of hiring. It's that way because people bring their personal life to work because work and life is inseparable. I do not understand if that's not a requirement voting aged people use when considering an elected official.
 
Would you hire a babysitter known for child molestation?

No but that would directly be related to the work.

Would you hire a cashier known for stealing money?

again directly related to the job

Would you hire a roofer known for bailing on the job before it was finished?

And here this is job related, you know not doing what they were hired for.

What a person does in their personal life is the de facto #1 qualifying/disqualifying measurement in terms of hiring.

Why? If I am hiring a plumber, why should I care if he is, I don't know, a furry? That is his personal life and doesn't change the fact that he can work on my pipes. Now if he showed up in costume that would be different.

It's that way because people bring their personal life to work because work and life is inseparable.

Not everyone....note the above furry

I do not understand if that's not a requirement voting aged people use when considering an elected official.

Well because I think you might be too judgement. But then you can be consistent and call for the resignation of people who don't live up to the standards they set. There are many Republicans in that boat.
 
Would you hire a babysitter known for child molestation?
Would you hire a cashier known for stealing money?
Would you hire a roofer known for bailing on the job before it was finished?

What a person does in their personal life is the de facto #1 qualifying/disqualifying measurement in terms of hiring. It's that way because people bring their personal life to work because work and life is inseparable. I do not understand if that's not a requirement voting aged people use when considering an elected official.

I doubt very much you have even the slightest idea what the details of an individuals life entail.....yet you vote for them anyway.

Did you know Boehner is a cross dresser?

He probably isn't.....but you don't know.
 
Behavior in personal life can indicate potential issues if given power.

Can you think of a good example where this has proved to be the case? Can you think of a politician who behaved badly in his private life and then behaved similarly poorly in his (it's usually male) professional life? I'm sure such examples must exist, I just can't think of one.
 
I doubt very much you have even the slightest idea what the details of an individuals life entail.....yet you vote for them anyway.

Did you know Boehner is a cross dresser?

He probably isn't.....but you don't know.

You're mostly correct, except in the instances where the media or other entities provide verifiable background information about the candidate.
 
My primary criterion is character. If a candidate flunks my character test, his or her lean or promises either don't matter much. If you're willing to habitually betray your spouse or your faith, I surely can't count on you to stand up for me. ;)
 
My primary criterion is character. If a candidate flunks my character test, his or her lean or promises either don't matter much. If you're willing to habitually betray your spouse or your faith, I surely can't count on you to stand up for me. ;)

I understand that this is a common inclination of many, if not most, potential voters, but do the facts back that up? Is someone who cheats on his partner more likely to perform badly as an elected representative? Or be less trustworthy towards the needs and interests of his constituents? That's what I want to ask.
 
This should be an interesting thread...
no man is perfect, some may be too "imperfect"....but who are we to judge ?
A toughie.....
Does pulling off a flies wings make a man into a future animal abuser ?
I think it does....
Does a little boy lying at the age of 4 make him into a liar....permanently ?
I think it does...
 
A person who cannot conduct their personal life in an honorable and ethical manner, cannot be trusted with political power.
 
I understand that this is a common inclination of many, if not most, potential voters, but do the facts back that up? Is someone who cheats on his partner more likely to perform badly as an elected representative? Or be less trustworthy towards the needs and interests of his constituents? That's what I want to ask.

I guess it depends on how you define "badly." Why would you trust someone to be trustworthy in the service of others when he or she can't be trusted to keep a promise to his or her life-partner? Honor and virtue, like charity, begin at home.
 
I do not give a **** who a politician sleeps with, how many times they have been divorced, or any worthless crap like that. I want to know what a politician stands for, and how they are going to accomplish their goals, and what those goals are. However, certain things do matter. Drug use can affect judgement and performance. Corruption is a deal breaker for me, no matter what the corrupt politician stands for. But most of what people make a big deal about, I just do not care. Some married guy is caught on camera kissing some one not his wife? Don't care. Going out with a rentboy? Don't care.
 
Honor and virtue, like charity, begin at home.

That sounds like a meaningless cliché to me. I'm not sure there's any evidence to back it up or render it true; I think it's an emotional response, nothing much more.
 
I don't think it's productive when political opposition goes on a witch hunt into someone's personal life largely for the sake of political gain. In particular, I think Rand Paul's recent comments with regards to Hillary Clinton are repulsive.
 
That sounds like a meaningless cliché to me. I'm not sure there's any evidence to back it up or render it true; I think it's an emotional response, nothing much more.

You realize, of course, why clichés become clichés.

Not really sure why you're suggesting that my opinion is an emotional response. Because I am a woman? In any event, I've said nothing that remotely suggests this.

We all make mistakes, and I admire those who admit their faults, change, and move on. But lying, cheating, and stealing are all the same to me, and if they're habitual rather than the slips and falls of which most of us are guilty, that's a deal-breaker. I won't vote for a habitual philanderer, which is why I never considered for a second voting for Bill Clinton, whose "bimbo eruptions" were already very well known.

You either have a virtuous character, or you don't. And where do you learn virtue and live it? Think for just a moment...at home.
 
It depends. If someone is against doing something and then does it themselves, yes it should matter.

For instance if a politicians is caught cheating on their spouse I think that normally is just between them and their spouse, however, if the politicians rallies and spouts against cheating on spouses and then does it themselves they should be held accountable.

Hypocrisy is revealed! Who wants that in a leader? Walk your talk.
 
No, what someone does on their own time is no one else's business (except the police if it was illegal).

If a politician is married and publicly visits brothel's and professes to have sex with table lamps...I really don't much care in so far as voting for him/her.

I don't much care what my lawyer, accountant or doctor does in their spare time..the same goes for someone I might vote for.
 
You realize, of course, why clichés become clichés.
Because they are easy to repeat and get horribly over-used?

Not really sure why you're suggesting that my opinion is an emotional response. Because I am a woman? In any event, I've said nothing that remotely suggests this.
Actually, it hadn't ever really occurred to me to look to see whether you admitted your gender. You obviously aren't very familiar with my worldview if you think that's how my mind would work.

You either have a virtuous character, or you don't. And where do you learn virtue and live it? Think for just a moment...at home.
I totally disagree. The world is not divided between the virtuous and the wicked. There's no such thing as a saint and it would be a very hubristic claim that you are so perfect that you can sit in judgement on, and dismiss entirely, anyone who's ever made a big mistake.
 
I was listening to NPR today at work and an interview came on that I thought was very interesting.

Here's what's going on:


The gist of it is, this guy, Narendra Modi, is running for prime minister in India with the persuasive platform that because he is living the bachelor life, he will have more time and ability to devote himself to the job. It turns out he actually still has a wife, although he contends that the marriage was loveless and purely a business relationship, which based on the limited evidence presented, seems reasonably likely to be true. What really got me thinking was when the interviewer was speaking with a supporter of Modi, and asking her about how this recent revelation might affect his chances or anyone's opinion of him.

I can't find the transcript of the interview, but basically she was saying, 'why would his personal life matter when we have so many other problems at hand?' The interviewer countered with something like, 'well, shouldn't it matter?'

And that's the question, should it matter?

It seems to me that when these politicians get busted in the US, your anthony weiners, your john edwardssss, your kissing congressmen etc. they aren't kicked out because they're bad politicians (partisan feelings aside) but simply because of a misstep in their personal lives. I'd also point out that there are probably plenty of politicians, good and bad, that probably did these things and got away with it. Look at Thomas Jefferson and all his slave babies.
And, I think with the advent of social media these kinds of things will only become more prevalent when the younger people start getting into office and the things they put on facebook/twitter/DP fourms ten years ago will come back to haunt them.

Bill Clinton was president during one of the most prosperous times in US history, and he was almost removed from office for getting a BJ. The current president of France, Francois Hollande is in the middle of some serious soap opera business right now as well, yet few french consider that something revealing about his effectiveness. Do Americans put too much stock into it, assuming that it is some non-criminal aspect of their personal lives?

There is a fine line we walk here between self-righteous judgment and practical judgment.

There has been no perfect man other than Jesus--and many don't believe in him--who has ever walked the Earth. For the Christians, the Bible is full of flawed and sinful individuals that God raised up to be leaders who accomplished great things. And the stories tell us that many/most of these continued to be flawed and sinful individuals in their appointed and exalted roles, but they were nevertheless effective. But they also all knew they were flawed and sinful people, accepted their reduction in status when necessary, and were repentant of their sins.

Now fast forward to secular times where humans are no longer required to look to God or any other other deities to lift up and approve their leaders. The duty is now left to us to evaluate a person's suitability and fitness for high office. But is there any man or woman who exists who has been perfect? Any whose personal history is above reproach in every respect? And can we expect those we put in high office to be paragons of virtue at all time? To never err? Never sin? Never get it wrong? Never be weak in any respect?

Is a person sorry for his sins? Admits them, asks for forgiveness, and then does his damndest to not repeat them? Who doesn't pretend that it is okay and should be ignored? Such people I can trust far more than the smug types who won't admit their error, who flaunt their 'sins', and who shrug off valid criticism and consider themselves too important to be held accountable.

We as a people should demand much from our elected leaders. We should expect them to have honor, integrity, and to be a good example and role model for all who look up to them. We can forgive them a moment of weakness or an error in judgment when they regret such things. We should, however, demand that they deserve the opportunity they are given to serve.
 
Because they are easy to repeat and get horribly over-used?

Actually, it hadn't ever really occurred to me to look to see whether you admitted your gender. You obviously aren't very familiar with my worldview if you think that's how my mind would work.


I totally disagree. The world is not divided between the virtuous and the wicked. There's no such thing as a saint and it would be a very hubristic claim that you are so perfect that you can sit in judgement on, and dismiss entirely, anyone who's ever made a big mistake.

Quotes About Cliches (23 quotes)

I will have to disagree with you about saints, who, after all, were very human beings, most of them. ;)

You are misinterpreting, however, what I have actually said. Not intentionally, I hope. I did distinguish between the habitual and the slips and falls of which most of us are guilty.

I guess you missed that.
 
Back
Top Bottom