We do not hold our politicians to the same moral standards as children

Thank you Con for the response. I would like to remind Con that he is refuting the arguments made that "We do not hold our politicians to the same moral standards as children"Con concedes that politicians do immoral things but points out immoral acts such as adultery. I would hardly think that adultery is a moral wrong doing we forbid children to do. This is because children are not generally committing these acts. Bringing up adultery is an irrelevant point made by Con. Con argues that our representatives are held responsible for their ill or immoral actions and can be voted out of office for their wrongdoing. There is a lot of information that points out the contrary. Below is a graph of the percentage of re elected incumbents from 1964-2010. [1] It can be argued that many ill actions have been committed by our legislatures in this time frame. From sending men and women to die in wars or exerting force upon people through unjust legislation. Despite these actions that we have discussed they continue to be re elected, proving that we don't hold our politicians to these moral standards, that they are not being held accountable as Con claims. I'll rebut more of what Con has thrown at me."What I want to get across is that the reason we vote in politicians is because of their efforts to appear morally-sound. Despite chaos, the American political system still votes for the candidate that proves themselves more-moral."We do not vote in politicians because of how they present themselves in their personal lives. We elect representatives to come up with economic and social policy that will become the guidelines for running a country. My argument is that their actions go against the very moral standards we hold children to. Because there is no reprehension for their actions, we are not holding them to those standards. "Parents don't tell their children to just go around and start fights. Presidents can't just declare war; they have to have a good reason for it, and must get approval from congress. "The men and women of congress are elected representatives, and politicians. Politicians that initiate wars. So there's no point to be had there. And when you speak about having a good reason, I have never heard a parent say , "Don't hit, unless you have a good reason." Just like how you would tell an adult if someone's bothering you, we can go to the international community to resolve conflicts unless its some sort of direct attack in which its ok to defend ourselves. Even if we are "promoting democracy" its an act of aggression against another body. If its not in self defense the reason doesn't matter.Parents do not tell their kids to hit people who are being mean to them.Parents do not tell their children to hit people who are hitting others.Parents do not tell their kids to hit people who do not believe in what you do or do what you do. "But my argument is that we vote on a moral basis, and for candidates that appear to have good morals. If they're moral conscience is poor or they have committed immoral acts before or during the time of office, then we don’t vote for them. We vote them out of office."Bill Clinton was not impeached after cheating on his wife while in office. Our representatives did not punish him and we did not kick those representatives out of office. "This is an instance in which the morals of children do not compare to morals of politicians. Parents tell their children not to cheat off another child's paper. Politicians cheating involves money (millions), time (lots of it), and strategy. This two have nothing similar."Con is essentially saying that cheating is not the same when you are older and doing it on a much larger scale. This is simply untrue. Cheating is cheating and even though politicians are clearly doing it, we do not hold them accountable for this same moral truth we hold children to. "However, there is one instance in which the two compare – and that is cheating in the sense of adultery."This is hardly true. No parent is teaching their kids about the concepts of adultery and do not generally scold them not to commit it. I found this claim to be a little silly. "America elects politicians that represent who they are – conservative, liberal, etc. Since no one runs on a campaign of eliminating taxes, this would not be a representation of the people."First of all you cannot claim that Americans are well represented. It takes 50% plus 1 to get a majority and have your politician voted into office. How can a population of 49% republicans and 51% democrats getting one democrat representative be accurate or appropriate representation? Aside from that, just because its the law, it doesn't change the definition of theft or what it means for my point. Many people do not want to pay taxes for a variety of reasons but are forced to because it pays for a multitude of government programs that many people believe aren't necessary. "The constitution says that the government has a right to tax."Ok, the constitution permits the theft. "Since the constitution was voted on by elected officials of the people, the people were willing to accept the taxes. They consented to the taxes, if you will."No, it was voted on by people who were aristocrats and former British officials governing the colonies who believed it would be more profitable to be independent. And by the people you mean land owning white men. That's a history lesson for another time. "The politicians that exert laws are elected by the people and are, therefore, a representation of the people. If one state wants to legalize gay marriage and another does not, then that would be a fair representation of what the people want. And parents teach their children to play fair. Therefore, your argument on this subject is invalid."Con argues that because these people were elected it makes the moral ills they commit ok. My entire point is that we do not hold politicians to the same moral standards as children and here he proves my point. Politicians are voted into office and exert force and its ok by the people who voted for them. They aren't holding politicians to the same standards children when they allow and encourage the passing of these laws. Thank you Con. As for playing fair, wouldn't it be fair not to force people to live a certain way as long as they aren't hurting anyone? Democracy isn't "fair", that's why we have laws to protect people who may otherwise be exploited. Children, minorities, women etc. Would it be fair if 51% of the population voted to re institute slavery? Would it be fair to the slaves? Was it fair back when it was legal and when it was by the consent of the people? I'd say my argument is not invalid. I thank Con once again for taking me up on this debate, it was fun! :) Sources:[1] - http://www.outsidethebeltway.com...