Scandalous Politicians Poll

[Hestia]

9 minutes ago, Patine said:

Is EXISTANCE of Israel the ONLY motive for BDS, or mostly for their more extremist wing? Or, do a number of them support targeting a nation that's occupied another nation, refuse to allow the dignity of nationhood (or even true citizenhood or self-determination) while being hostile to that nation's best interest, and having policies of totalitarianism and oppression in that occupied nation they don't apply at home - the dichotomy of status typical of Colonial powers? This is an honest question, as I don't have a census of the motives of all BDS' supporters. But, to be honest, I'd be highly surprised if you did.

Does it matter if it is the only motive? If it is a motive at all, then it shows the movement is highly flawed. I oppose the Netanyahu government (or former government as it is now), and find Israeli tactics against Palestinians to be overly harsh in many instances. However, they have a right to a state and a right to defend themselves. There is a way to critique both sides without getting into inflamed and racist rhetoric. BDS accuses just Israel of causing the current problems, when both sides have contributed to endless fighting. The BDS movement calls for boycotting nearly anything and everything associated with Israel - businesses, cultural establishments, and even academics. Often BDS targets Jewish performers to not perform in areas unless they publicly say they back a Palestinian state, something that isn't required of non-Jewish performers. The BDS movement sponsors an "Israeli Apartheid Week", which is highly insensitive to those that did suffer under Apartheid in South Africa. In fact, I would argue BDS hurts Palestinians more than it helps. By delegitimizing Israel and refusing to work with them, it turns Palestinians away from what will truly help - actual conversation with Israel. That's why when BDS was rolled out, even the Palestinian Authority's leadership didn't support it. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by Hestia

[Zenobiyl]

None of the above. If people vote for someone then the government has no right to deny the people’s choice, unless they are literally sitting in a prison cell for committing a serious crime. That is what makes our country a democracy.

[Timur]

Delete

Edited August 13, 2021 by Timur

[Zenobiyl]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

So being elected should protect one from criminal prosecution, even if convincing evidence is in abundance? There is more to maintaining the trust, honour, dignity, and office of public service than just keeping your own constituents happy. Or at least there should be in any society that values justice and due process as well. Protecting sitting political office-holders from all prosecution or personal litigation is tantamount to them enjoying an analog to Feudal Noble or Theocratic Priestly Caste legal status, and means the concept of a Republic is invalid, moot, and a complete lie!

I’m not against prosecuting elected officials, I’m against using criminal behaviour as a justification to bar people from being elected to office. That would have dangerous implications for our democracy.

[pilight]

20 minutes ago, Zenobiyl said:

I’m not against prosecuting elected officials, I’m against using criminal behaviour as a justification to bar people from being elected to office. That would have dangerous implications for our democracy.

In many cases criminals are not allowed to vote for public office, it seems reasonable to also disallow them from holding such an office.

[Timur]

I know of three people who ran from jail...

1) Eugene Debs (jailed for disagreeing with the US entering the WWI)

2) Lyndon LaRouche (jailed for credit card fraud)

3) Keith Russell Judd (jailed for...threats)

Edited August 13, 2021 by Timur