"What a politician legally does in her/his private life is nobody's business but her/his own." Agree or disagree?
Leaders should be held to a higher standard. Imagine what sort of message it would send to the world if some horrible act was committed by a prominent leader. Because these people are the embodiment of the country, they must behave well. They literally represent the people.
I don't care what they do in their private life unless they are not being hypocritical. (Ted Cruz)
I care about my leaders spiritual health an whether or not they are able to be in communion with God to help them lead. God does not dwell where sin is harbored. I wouldn't judge my leaders for making a mistake, but I would not want them leading me if they were living in sin instead of seeking God.
with in sin i am guessing you mean these:
- were divorced
- ate shrimp
- had an abortion or made somebody abort
- never masturbated
oh and i am really glad god told bush to invade iraq.
and all those republican presidential nominees that were told by god this is their year. god's just a big freaking troll, huh?
Oh man... Humans are born to sin. Those people who shoot family values while holding a picket sign that says GOD HATES GAYS and using sites like Ashely Madison.
As long as it stays legal and ethical, yes.
Only if they preach one thing and then do the opposite. Otherwise all spouses should be off limits as well as their families.
Disagree. Their family / personal life tells me what type of person they are and how they deal with life's problems. It's very relevant.
If one preaches family values, yet has been married and divorced three or four times, this is very telling!
I don't judge my politicians personal or family life. I judge them on the performance of their job in the office and what have or can do for the nation.
If they're politicians serving me then I have every right to know what's happening in their personal lives or don't vote for them. But honestly here's what's going on in all of their personal lives: they're all full of sh!t.
Private time is private time, to a point. They chose to be public figures
Nope. They are getting paid by the taxpayers.
What they do in their personal lives...well it says a lot about them as a politician. So yes. It does.
Depends on what that legal thing is. Worships Hilter as Jesus come again? I have issue with that. Enjoys getting super drunk Friday nights? Whatever.
Unless the politician brings it up themself, then it isn't anyone's business.
I think to an extent, not if the politician in his or her private life is a drug addict or criminal drug runner or something like that. I think it would be a bad thing and then it isn't their own business. Grey area here.
It shows their true character. Why does the same poll show up like twice a month?
Unless the politician runs on something in the personal life then no. For example the Alabama governor ran a family values campaign, and because of his scandal, he ruins what he ran on
Oh come on 49%! How would like it if the news was screaming about you buying a burger at McTrump's! Ha. I am so funny. McDonald's McTrump's. DONALD TRUMP!
It goes to character.
Yes, only because they work for a organization which has a legal ability to conduct violence.
If someone can't keep promises they make to their spouse (and God), what makes you as a constituent any better? A lack of integrity can't be compartmentalized indefinitely.
I will now look up a definition for the word 'is'.
Character is what you do when you think no one is watching. It's important to know the character of potential and actual elected officials so we have an idea if they will be fair and honest or corrupt.
I mean, there should be regulations and limits in terms of how far privacy will go for politicians, but in no way is prying into someone's private life okay, no matter who it is, although it seems like celebrities are special cases.
However, if a politician is doing potentially illegal and lives like a seriously messed up human being, ultimately, the public will find out, and perhaps that is not such a terrible thing.
In any case, privacy in terms of everyday life should be respected. However, I believe that the character of the people political ideas come from is of even a similar importance than the ideas themselves, for debatable reasons.
For the most part, agree.
If we don't care what a politician legally does in their private lives, then I never want to hear about how a politician donated to this cause, or took donations from a corporation, or is affiliated with a racist group
If a candidate marches with the klan in their spare time, it should not matter, according to a majority here
If a candidate is wasted 23 hours a day and is only sober enough to make a short speech, that doesn't matter.
If a politician owes massive amounts of debt to various lenders, that doesn't matter.
If a candidate preaches a $15 minimum wage, but pays their staff $7.50 per hour, that's okay.
If a politician runs a company that gets massive subsidies from the government, well that's their private life we can't touch it
It can't be, unfortunately. A politician's private life offers insight as to what his public policies will be. And once in office, he is, unfairly or not, the representative face of his constituency.
I said yes, but within reason. If you're representing the public, paid by public money, you should be held to a higher standard. I taught public school for 20 and was careful of many things I did on my private life. I didn't drink in public, stayed politically neutral on Facebook and kept away from political/religious/controversial conversation with most people. It was a challenge, especially when students attempted to engage me in conversation. We have too much influence in their lives and must let them form their own opinions. Certain occupations require a higher level of discretion; if you can't maintain it, find another career.
This is a dumb statement because what does "private life" qualify as?...
As long as it is legal and consensual its none of our fucking business.
With in the legal scope of things.
No, not everything. If a candidate gets all leather and boots in the bedroom, that's one thing, but certain things (such as crack addiction, which has happened) will affect their service.
I don't want a deviant.
Oh please, get over yourself. Just because you are repressed, it does not mean everyone else has to be. My anal beads send you their regards, good sir!
My bible sends its regards to you as well.
I put the regards in my own bible...oh wait, that's right, I burned it.
Did your wife's son tell you about atheism?
If he's doing cocaine, I want to know.
The key word was LEGALLY
I agree as long as "private" isn't code for "concealing illegal activity."
Well, yes and no. Should they be allowed to do what they want? Yea. Should it be against the law to talk about what they're doing? No
I believe politicians should have to live by the same rules we live by. If this is a principle I apply personally, I'll extend it to them as well.
When you choose that career you go right up under the microscope. It really is not anybody's business but others will make it there business and there's no stopping it.
You're an employee of the people.
That shouldn't apply to Republican politicians. If republicans want to govern our sex lives, their sex lives should be our business too.
And if democrats want us to pay for it, we should know about it as well.
Pay for what?
Republicans do not want to govern your sex life.
And if liberals want to interfere in my free exercise of religion, I demand the right to proselytize to them without restriction.
It works both ways.
How are liberals interfering with your ability to exercise your religion?
Churches should not be forced to pay for services or products which are against their doctrine.
Services like what?
Health insurance for employees which provide contraceptive service at no charge to the employee, for the Catholic Church comes to mind.
Preventing you from using the excuse of "it's my religion" to discriminate against women and denying them medical services for contraceptive, which the equivalent is provided to men, is not interfering with your free exercise of religion. It's preventing you from discriminating against women. You'll have to find another illegitimate reason to discriminate against people.
Your liberalism is the case in point.
This is not an unfair discrimination. Especially with an institution with a long held position on contraceptives.
By the way, which male contraceptive is paid by health insurance.
My liberalism is the reason why same-sex couples can marry here. My liberalism is the same reason why interracial couples can marry here. My liberalism is the reason why the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act are the laws of the land. My liberalism is the reason why schools can no longer be segregated by race.
Many institutions have or had long standing positions diametrically opposed to those events. Having a long held position against something, such as contraceptives, is not a legitimate excuse to continue it when it has a discriminatory effect.
Religious institutions provide health insurance to their make employees but refuse to provide health insurance to women with the equivalent services that men are offered. For example, vasectomies are covered by insurance but equivalent birth control procedures for women are not.
Tubal ligations are typically covered under the insurance. Catholics would not want vasectomies cover any more than other contraceptives.
You were elected by the people. The people want to know what they are getting. Including your private life.
Mostly agree, as long as they are walking their talk. If they are denigrating uninhibited fun loving people while secretly having fun themselves, or are claiming to be for the working class while laundering Investment Banking cash on the side, I do care. It isn't the legal activity though, it's the hypocrisy or appearance (or reality) of a conflict of interests.
Well....there was that Coke using hooker buying mayor in Toronto. If that was my mayor, I'd be interested in knowing that.
Or the crackhead in DC
Rob Ford died last week. Very tragic.
Not very Progressive of you shazam.
EVO - your point being?
My point was sarcasm. Progressive allow the mayor to stay in office.
Agree in general, but some major life choices make them more or less fit for high offices.
Relatively private lives. But most politicians are liars, faking it by putting on a show for the crowd they're speaking to, namely to get elected. So, if they lie, which they do, often, then we need to expose the hypocrisy somehow.
*They should be able to live relatively private lives.*
Your ego has put you in the spotlight, be prepared for your makeup to run.
Agree, unless a serious crime has been committed.
I think it's somewhat subjective. With politicians there is often a strong stench of hypocrisy.
I agree as long as said politician also governs by a live and let live philosophy.
Yes to this.
Unless you run your campaign on moral family values. And end up banging your secretary like the Alabama gov. The main reason you were elected has then become false and voters deserve to know
Also yes to this.
Do they walk their talk? If they want to legislate based on their moral standards, their behavior is relevant.