or an off balance girlfriend who threatens this if you dont come out and talk to her more than once
once more into the breach
or a lack of evidence to prove guilt in the public court of opinion instead of court of law so such a predator might be addressed for public safety, the maga owned politico trust me bro, after ny times shut her down, does also not fill me with convoicivision to argue further without seeing some evidence more than hearsay
To try to give you a serious answer to your question, there are three main western theories of morality. Consequentialism, Virtue Ethics, and Deontology. The people calling for Platner to drop out primarily identify internally with Virtue Ethics.
People are also consequentialists, and are pointing out that if you hold some candidates and not others to a given set of standards, you will wind up living in a fascist shit hole forever. I say this without judgement: assuming you accept that sentence as true some people will conclude we can’t let candidates get derailed by scandals if the other side isn’t going to, because it creates an electoral disadvantage, and yet another structural advantage for republicans. And some people look at that sentence and conclude ‘well fine, I’d rather live under fascism and be able to live with myself’. Neither side is wrong, per se.
Finally the deontologists are kind of split, and those people believe in rules and process. Technically, this is an accusation, not a conviction, so some deontologists want him to stay in. Other deontologists adhere more closely to party norms as rules, and want him out.
pretty sure as soon as the strategic reserve is at minimum levels the gas prices will pop the economy just like in 08, looking at fuel prices, there is some consensus that the derivatives bubble and the economy was accelerated or contributed by the big spike then too, for what its worth here is a snippet from a longer conversation with claude the other day about the timing and effects…
“The timing is on your side. Oil peaked around $147 in July 2008, but Lehman didn’t collapse until September 15, and the bulk of the crash to the $30s happened over September–December, right on top of the acute credit panic. So the dominant driver of that specific collapse was the financial crisis — a credit freeze, a global trade contraction, forced deleveraging, and a stampede out of commodity speculation — not primarily consumers and firms conserving because gasoline got expensive. Presenting $147→$30s as a clean “high price destroyed demand” story conflates a financial/credit event with a price-response event, exactly as you say. Fair hit. The honest nuance is that they’re entangled rather than fully separable. James Hamilton — probably the leading economist on oil-and-macro — argued in a 2009 Brookings paper that the oil spike itself was a meaningful contributor to the recession, not just a bystander: US miles driven and gasoline demand had already rolled over in late 2007 and early 2008, before Lehman, and the auto-heavy parts of the economy were buckling under fuel costs first. His stronger claim was that the oil shock alone might have produced a recession even without the financial crisis. That’s a contested, minority-leaning view — the mainstream reading is still that the financial crisis dominated — but it means high oil wasn’t innocent; it was one of the stressors loading an already over-levered system. So the two didn’t just coincide, they reinforced each other. And here’s the deeper point your question exposes, which is worth more than the correction itself: it’s genuinely hard to find a clean example of price-alone demand destruction, because oil spikes and recessions almost always travel together. Spikes help cause recessions, and recessions crush oil demand, so they arrive as a package — you rarely get to observe the price-conservation channel in isolation. That entanglement is real, and I was papering over it. The cleaner illustration of the structural piece — the permanent kind of demand destruction — is the aftermath of the 1970s shocks. Global and especially US oil demand fell durably through the early 1980s and didn’t recover for years: fuel economy standards, switching oil out of power generation and home heating, industrial efficiency. That’s the sliver that sticks even after the economy recovers, and it’s isolatable precisely because it persisted past the recovery — though even there the Volcker recession is a confounder, so it’s not perfectly pure either. So let me refine the claim rather than abandon it. 2008 is a fine illustration that a demand collapse crashes the oil price, but a poor illustration that the high price alone caused the collapse. My underlying point — that $150–200 oil is self-limiting — still holds, but the mechanism is better stated as: high oil prices help trigger or deepen a recession, and/or a coincident recession does the demand-crushing, and it’s that demand collapse (from whatever mix of causes) that breaks the price. Pure price-induced conservation is the slower, structural component I described last turn, not the fast circuit-breaker. The circuit-breaker is the recession — which, as you’re implying, may have its own separate ignition source and just happens to also torch oil demand on the way down.”