Morals as set by 'one senator voted out of order' is bad? 
Just playing. Public perception matters. But it doesnt mean, that you should claim a moral victory with poor arguments.
The better argument here is, that they won by not letting whitnesses give their accounts.
But then if roles were reversed, the other side wouldnt have either..
In politics morals dont matter so much, aside from gaining votes. And thats largely a good thing (so you can make compromises, and not have to always vote alongside party lines (morals are different than convictions f.e.)) And thats in the same instance also, why we all love to hate politics so much. Its largely amoral.
For voters they also seem to matter less, in the past years, but in the end always more so than for the people in deciding roles.
Trust me the last person you want there is a moral hardliner.
(Pence anyone? He and his wife whom he calls 'Mother'? ))
A 'good' politician should be informed by morals, but not always act because of them. Thats kind of a conundrum.
Just playing. Public perception matters. But it doesnt mean, that you should claim a moral victory with poor arguments.
The better argument here is, that they won by not letting whitnesses give their accounts.
But then if roles were reversed, the other side wouldnt have either..
In politics morals dont matter so much, aside from gaining votes. And thats largely a good thing (so you can make compromises, and not have to always vote alongside party lines (morals are different than convictions f.e.)) And thats in the same instance also, why we all love to hate politics so much. Its largely amoral.
For voters they also seem to matter less, in the past years, but in the end always more so than for the people in deciding roles.
Trust me the last person you want there is a moral hardliner.
(Pence anyone?
He and his wife whom he calls 'Mother'? ))A 'good' politician should be informed by morals, but not always act because of them. Thats kind of a conundrum.
Last edited by notimp,
