Trump and the Character of a President

[Guitar's Cry]

How much stock should we put into the character of a person when choosing a President? "But his policy" has become a mantra of those who support Trump but don't care for who he is personally.

To be frank, I have a hard time liking the man. This is not only because of his policies that focus on corporate wealth over human and environmental welfare, but because of his lack of moral integrity.

Some examples that don't seem to get as much air time:

-His story to Howard Stern where he turned away from an elderly man bleeding to death due to the sight of blood: The Time Donald Trump Turned Away in Disgust While a Man Was Bleeding to Death in Front of Him

-His attempted use of the Scottish Government to get a poor farmer off his family land due to how the property looked from his hotel: Michael Forbes (farmer) - Wikipedia

-Use of the Trump Foundation for personal gain or it failing to make promised pledges: Donald J. Trump Foundation - Wikipedia

These are in addition to the other more popular and well-traveled examples of his character.

So my question is: How much importance do you place on a person's character when choosing a President to support? This is keeping in mind the military leadership (of the most powerful military in the world with the most destructive weapons) and international diplomacy responsibilities the President has.

 

[metis]

I put a great deal of emphasis on personal character, especially since we all tend to be creatures of habit. A dishonest person in one area is likely to be dishonest in other areas as well.

 

[Kenny]

I think character is of utmost importance. But I also think that we have a difficulty here on multiple accounts

1) Public, in general, has had the attitude of "character at home and their personal lives shouldn't be a factor" so people support so many that have no character.
2) One is therefore relegated to choosing between people who have no character but one still must choose

As far as his shortcomings that you have mentioned... I don't know of a President that doesn't have many of these same traits but people elect them anyways.

 

[Stanyon]

He's a bad man, he's a very bad man, wish him into the cornfield!

 

[sun rise]

How much stock should we put into the character of a person when choosing a President?

I've posted here many times that I consider relative virtue to be critically important. I don't expect people and especially politicians to be saints although I wish they were.

Given the nature of most humans today, I want a politician to be relatively honest and relatively to try to fulfill their oaths of office.

Now we're faced with someone who ignores law, pisses on the Constitution, attacks those who dare to oppose him with slander and gaslighting and betrays American ideals.

And his cult members ignore what they would howl to Pluto if it were done by a Democrat and instead bow down at his feet.

And some are starting to call for him to be "President for Life" echoing what he's said. And I'm sure that Emperor Donald II will be cheered (or else) when he succeeds him.

the President said, “He’s now president for life. President for life. And he’s great. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll give that a shot someday.”

And of course his cult members will just say that he's joking. That's the new tactic of the fascists - to say that they're just joking as they increasingly stage terrorist attacks.

 

[dianaiad]

Good luck with that.

Clinton...rapist and sexual predator, and accused murderer
Johnson...probably murderer and absolutely dishonest
I don't know a single POTUS who can't be pointed at and called 'lousy character.'

At least Trump knows what the word 'no' means, and one can't say that of Kennedy, Johnson or Clinton, either one of 'em.

So when it comes down to things, policy is all we have to go on. Right now?

"It's the economy, stupid.'

 

[SkepticThinker]

Good luck with that.

Clinton...rapist and sexual predator, and accused murderer
Johnson...probably murderer and absolutely dishonest
I don't know a single POTUS who can't be pointed at and called 'lousy character.'

At least Trump knows what the word 'no' means, and one can't say that of Kennedy, Johnson or Clinton, either one of 'em.

So when it comes down to things, policy is all we have to go on. Right now?

"It's the economy, stupid.'

Uhhh, Trump has like 17+ accusers who have said he doesn't know what "no" means. Plus, we have him on tape saying he kisses and grabs p*****s without asking permission first.
Hello!?

 

[Nakosis]

How much stock should we put into the character of a person when choosing a President? "But his policy" has become a mantra of those who support Trump but don't care for who he is personally.

To be frank, I have a hard time liking the man. This is not only because of his policies that focus on corporate wealth over human and environmental welfare, but because of his lack of moral integrity.

Some examples that don't seem to get as much air time:

-His story to Howard Stern where he turned away from an elderly man bleeding to death due to the sight of blood: The Time Donald Trump Turned Away in Disgust While a Man Was Bleeding to Death in Front of Him

-His attempted use of the Scottish Government to get a poor farmer off his family land due to how the property looked from his hotel: Michael Forbes (farmer) - Wikipedia

-Use of the Trump Foundation for personal gain or it failing to make promised pledges: Donald J. Trump Foundation - Wikipedia

These are in addition to the other more popular and well-traveled examples of his character.

So my question is: How much importance do you place on a person's character when choosing a President to support? This is keeping in mind the military leadership (of the most powerful military in the world with the most destructive weapons) and international diplomacy responsibilities the President has.

I don't put much stock into the media perception of people. Generally unless you know the person personally, anyone can be made to look bad. I think it's a little naive to think you can know the character of a person you've never met. It's even a bit of a hazard thinking you know the character of people you have met. Hell if I only watched MSNBC or CNN I'm sure I'd be convinced that Trump was the anti-christ.

Voting based on character is voting based on your feelings and feelings can't always be trusted.

 

[PureX]

When all you care about is money, how much can character matter? ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"
"It's my guns, stupid!"
"It's those abortions, stupid!"

Voting for criminals just to get what you want is a sure way of destroying everything, and getting nothing.

 

[dianaiad]

Uhhh, Trump has like 17+ accusers who have said he doesn't know what "no" means. Plus, we have him on tape saying he kisses and grabs p*****s without asking permission first.
Hello!?

Excuse me, but that is NOT what that tape says. Sheesh. Have you actually LISTENED to it?

As well, I could accuse him of raping ME when I was seventeen, and y'all would probably believe it, because you hate him and figure that SINCE you hate him, then anything anybody accuses him of must, then, be true. Straight out of the Kavenaugh playbook.

BTW nobody raped me when I was seventeen or at any other time. Just so you know.

What we DO have from him is a tape where he was being a royal jerk, defaming and demeaning a woman up one side and down the other...a tape that the dems and Trump haters claimed proved he WAS a rapist...but which actually proved that the reason he was being such a jerk on tape was because he'd TRIED to get her into bed and she said no....and he didn't force the issue. That's the only evidence we have...his own words.

So...can he be a jerk? Yep . Would I want him as a next door neighbor? Nope. I would prefer Obama next door, and Trump thousands of miles away. In the White House.

 

[Father Heathen]

Clinton...rapist and sexual predator, and accused murderer

Uhh.. but Trump has been accused of rape: Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia

But of course you base your presumption of guilt on their political party.

I'm not saying Clinton is innocent and in fact I wouldn't doubt that he's guilty. I just find it so adorable how those accused of the same get a pass just because they hail from your corner of the political spectrum. Another example of this is how conservatives love to point out that Clinton was close to Epstein, while totally ignoring the fact that Trump was also a good buddy of Epstein's.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Excuse me, but that is NOT what that tape says. Sheesh. Have you actually LISTENED to it?

As well, I could accuse him of raping ME when I was seventeen, and y'all would probably believe it, because you hate him and figure that SINCE you hate him, then anything anybody accuses him of must, then, be true. Straight out of the Kavenaugh playbook.

BTW nobody raped me when I was seventeen or at any other time. Just so you know.

What we DO have from him is a tape where he was being a royal jerk, defaming and demeaning a woman up one side and down the other...a tape that the dems and Trump haters claimed proved he WAS a rapist...but which actually proved that the reason he was being such a jerk on tape was because he'd TRIED to get her into bed and she said no....and he didn't force the issue. That's the only evidence we have...his own words.

So...can he be a jerk? Yep . Would I want him as a next door neighbor? Nope. I would prefer Obama next door, and Trump thousands of miles away. In the White House.

Yes. I've heard the tape several times. Unfortunately.

17+ Women accusing him doesn't make you stop and think? I remember going through this when dozens of women started coming out about Bill Cosby's and Harvey Weinstein's behavior and people were trying to brush that off as well. Those two men are now in prison.

When somebody says on tape that they grope the genitals of, and kiss women without asking first, and then 17+ women come out and say he did just that, a reasonable human being would at least consider the possibility that something is going on there and consider the possibility that those 17+ women may be telling the truth. Don'tcha think?

BTW Somebody raped me when I was thirteen. Just so you know.

EDIT: Oh and how could I forget to mention Trump's interview on the Howard Stern Show where he talked about wandering backstage at the Miss Teen USA pageant so he could ogle young girls while they were undressing.

 

[Father Heathen]

He's a bad man, he's a very bad man, wish him into the cornfield!

Of course, if a democrat president behaved as half as bad, you would be loudly bellowing in outrage with tears streaming down your beet red face.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Uhh.. but Trump has been accused of rape: Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia

But of course you base your presumption of guilt on their political party.

I'm not saying Clinton is innocent and in fact I wouldn't doubt that he's guilty. I just find it so adorable how those accused of the same get a pass just because they hail from your corner of the political spectrum. Another example of this is how conservatives love to point out that Clinton was close to Epstein, while totally ignoring the fact that Trump was also a good buddy of Epstein's, too.

This! This! This!

 

[dianaiad]

Uhh.. but Trump has been accused of rape: Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia

But of course you base your presumption of guilt on their political party.

I'm not saying Clinton is innocent and in fact I wouldn't doubt that he's guilty. I just find it so adorable how those accused of the same get a pass just because they hail from your corner of the political spectrum. Another example of this is how conservatives love to point out that Clinton was close to Epstein, while totally ignoring the fact that Trump was also a good buddy of Epstein's.

Well, I do assume that he's not guilty, for the same reason I assume that ANYBODY accused of a crime isn't guilty. You know, 'innocent until proven guilty' sort of thing. Clinton was PROVEN guilty, and punished for it. He was disbarred and had to pay a large penalty.

I notice, here, that you are saying 'I wouldn't doubt that he (Clinton) is guilty" as if that were giving you some sort of 'well, ain't I even handed in spite of my politics' sort of thing . The problem is, there is no doubt about Clinton's guilt. He admitted to it personally, was tried and PUNISHED for it. That you are saying 'I wouldn't doubt' means that you are allowing your politics to enter into things. There is no doubt there. None at all...by his own admission and by a court (more than one) of law. the only thing he DIDN'T get was fired over it.

But you are telling me that I have to figure that Trump is guilty simply because he is accused...because of his politics? You don't like them, so of course he is guilty of everything he's been accused of. (snort) and you accuse ME of believing as I do because of politics.

Sheesh.

 

[dianaiad]

Of course, if a democrat president behaved as half as bad, you would be loudly bellowing in outrage with tears streaming down your beet red face.

(sigh) Even I recognized the quote here, from Twilight Zone, where the Billy Mumy character was wishing the folks he didn't like 'into the cornfield.' It's sarcasm, FH. Great googly moogly.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

He's a bad man, he's a very bad man, wish him into the cornfield!

He is NOT a bad man.



He is NOT a very bad man.



He is evil incarnate.

 

[metis]

Well, I do assume that he's not guilty, for the same reason I assume that ANYBODY accused of a crime isn't guilty. You know, 'innocent until proven guilty' sort of thing.

If my memory is correct, you didn't grant Hillary that same privilege. And Trump certainly didn't when he chanted "Lock her up!" along with the crowds. And it's not just Hillary that he has "convicted", btw.

So, your selective outrage seems to be quite hypocritical.

 

[dianaiad]

If my memory is correct, you didn't grant Hillary that same privilege. And Trump certainly didn't when he chanted "Lock her up!" along with the crowds. And it's not just Hillary that he has "convicted", btw.

So, your selective outrage seems to be quite hypocritical.

Didn't I?

Prove it.

 

[metis]

Didn't I?

Prove it.

Maybe you should have actually read what I wrote more carefully as I said "If my memory is correct...". If I was wrong on that, I sincerely do apologize.

Speaking of which, how often do you hear Trump apologizing for much of anything? Again, you're clearly into "selective outrage".