Trump and the Character of a President

[dianaiad]

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".

We aren't talking about Trump here, who, as you perhaps have read, is a jerk.

We are talking about ME and what I may have done or not done. If you can't prove it, or at least can't give me evidence, then don't make the accusation.

Come to think of it, isn't that what we are talking about in regard to those who are accusing Trump??? Or for that matter, anybody else?

 

[metis]

We aren't talking about Trump here, who, as you perhaps have read, is a jerk.

We are talking about ME and what I may have done or not done. If you can't prove it, or at least can't give me evidence, then don't make the accusation.

Come to think of it, isn't that what we are talking about in regard to those who are accusing Trump??? Or for that matter, anybody else?

I apologized, but apparently that isn't good enough for you. Apparently demonization is more important to you than the issue of forgiveness that Jesus taught us to use and accept.

 

[dianaiad]

I apologized, but apparently that isn't good enough for you. Apparently demonization is more important to you than the issue of forgiveness that Jesus taught us to use and accept.

Ah. Hit and run.

Apologies are great, but true repentance doesn't include 'I apologize but you did it anyway" Of course, you won't see this, but hey. That's not my problem

 

[Revoltingest]

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

Always remember that when getting rid of one leader, another
will replace them. Better know what we're getting into.
Tis often a question of the lesser of 2 evils. Once it was Donald
vs Hillary. Then Trump vs Pence. And now Trump vs a big
question mark. I'd like to see that question answered before voting.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

Wait. Clinton was found guilty of rape? You know, what we were actually talking about and what you accused him of.

Sheesh.

 

[Father Heathen]

(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.

Of course it was sarcasm, but the quote was used to dismiss criticisms of Trump's character rather than address them. Gosh golly gee willickers.

 

[dianaiad]

Wait. Clinton was found guilty of rape? You know, what we were actually talking about and what you accused him of.

Sheesh.

He didn't have to pay that huge settlement to Paula because he looked at her funny.

Oh, and while this isn't a legal definition as far as I know, and even though to this day that intern insists that the sex was consensual, it is my opinion that when the power involved is that disparate (POTUS vs 21 year old White House intern) it doesn't matter. It's rape.

Just like epstiens' transgressions were rape. If the victim's choice is 'do this or not get the role or lose my job or my reputation,' then it's rape. that is my opinion only, certainly, but the law seems to agree with me when it is only age that is the issue, doesn't it?

I THINK that if Lewinski had gone ahead and charged him with rape, she would have had a really good case for it. Again, my opinion only, and not legally binding.

Y'know, I was never raped, but when I was 19 my supervisor told me that he would be most happy to 'discuss' my promotion over a weekend at his cabin in the woods. See, I had been training all the replacement foremen for the job I was doing; they kept being drafted and replaced. I pointed out that I A; knew the job really well and B; would not BE drafted and so C; was the best choice for the job.

So the supervisor figured that I should spend the weekend with him and 'discuss' the matter. Either that, or quit.

I quit. Turned out to be a really good choice for me....but....

Something tells me that if I had wanted/needed the job very badly, it would have been rape. Don't you think so? I was lucky, though, and I know it. I didn't HAVE to have the foreman's job, or even the one I was doing. I had other options and I knew it. Not everybody has those other options. Did Lewinski or Paula have other options, given everything? (shrug)

Doesn't matter, really...it's the coercion that matters, and he DID use that, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Hey, y'know what?

I don't think I've ever met a woman who didn't have a similar, or worse, story to tell.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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.

I think you can judge character even while sifting through the biased slop of certain media. For instance, much of Trump's character is very much coming from his own history and mouth. His demeaning, bullying tactics are very much evident on Twitter: nicknames for his opponents, making juvenile jokes about people's appearance and intelligence.

Plus, the referenced issues I originally posted are a matter of record, not biased judgements.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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.'

Is it just policy, even assuming some level of lousy character for everyone (we are all human afterall), when the President is also the head of the world's most powerful military, has the power to use nuclear weapons, and is an international diplomat?

Should voters ignore character issues that could influence policy decisions? Take the Michael Forbes issue; if you care about government intrusion on property rights, shouldn't that be concerning?

 

[Stanyon]

I remember in 2016 when it was claimed that Trump was obviously unhinged and was supposedly going to shoot nuclear missiles at anyone that called him a big fat orange turd.
Good times them was

 

[dianaiad]

Is it just policy, even assuming some level of lousy character for everyone (we are all human afterall), when the President is also the head of the world's most powerful military, has the power to use nuclear weapons, and is an international diplomat?

Should voters ignore character issues that could influence policy decisions? Take the Michael Forbes issue; if you care about government intrusion on property rights, shouldn't that be concerning?

I think that if we could find a moral politician, take a picture quick because in two seconds s/he won't be. All we really have to go by are the promises, the actual results of policies, and whether said politician will/can do what s/he SAYS s/he will do.

I just saw a video this morning by someone who says that the Dems will PROBABLY go for Bernie...because doing so will allow them to think that they REALLY want all the socialist/communist/feel good policies Sanders says he wants, but because there is NO WAY a Republican controlled house or Senate will allow him to actually DO anything he says he wants to do, they are, in reality, safe. A figurehead president who looks virtuous but can't exactly DO anything.

Because of course nobody wants him to actually be able to DO anything he's campaigning on. they just want to look good, like those 'whited sepulchers' the NT talks about; looking good and 'virtue signaling and political correct speech is important, but heaven help the nation if he actually gets his way with anything.

I figure that this guy is probably right; it's all about appearance, not actuality. If these guys thought for one second that Bernie would succeed in anything he says he wants to do, he'd be total toast.

 

[Father Heathen]

He didn't have to pay that huge settlement to Paula because he looked at her funny.

Oh, and while this isn't a legal definition as far as I know, and even though to this day that intern insists that the sex was consensual, it is my opinion that when the power involved is that disparate (POTUS vs 21 year old White House intern) it doesn't matter. It's rape.

Just like epstiens' transgressions were rape. If the victim's choice is 'do this or not get the role or lose my job or my reputation,' then it's rape. that is my opinion only, certainly, but the law seems to agree with me when it is only age that is the issue, doesn't it?

I THINK that if Lewinski had gone ahead and charged him with rape, she would have had a really good case for it. Again, my opinion only, and not legally binding.

Y'know, I was never raped, but when I was 19 my supervisor told me that he would be most happy to 'discuss' my promotion over a weekend at his cabin in the woods. See, I had been training all the replacement foremen for the job I was doing; they kept being drafted and replaced. I pointed out that I A; knew the job really well and B; would not BE drafted and so C; was the best choice for the job.

So the supervisor figured that I should spend the weekend with him and 'discuss' the matter. Either that, or quit.

I quit. Turned out to be a really good choice for me....but....

Something tells me that if I had wanted/needed the job very badly, it would have been rape. Don't you think so? I was lucky, though, and I know it. I didn't HAVE to have the foreman's job, or even the one I was doing. I had other options and I knew it. Not everybody has those other options. Did Lewinski or Paula have other options, given everything? (shrug)

Doesn't matter, really...it's the coercion that matters, and he DID use that, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Hey, y'know what?

I don't think I've ever met a woman who didn't have a similar, or worse, story to tell.

Yes, it looks pretty damning. I don't defend Clinton, and if you remember I've stated before that I'm no fan of either of the Clinton's.
It just seems like many place partisanship before morality/ethics and tend to be selective with their outrage based on the political affiliation of the accused.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, it looks pretty damning. I don't defend Clinton, and if you remember I've stated before that I'm no fan of either of the Clinton's.
It just seems like many place partisanship before morality/ethics and tend to be selective with their outrage based on the political affiliation of the accused.

Of course they do.

.....and I see more liberals do it than I do conservatives.

I'm also QUITE aware that the reason I do so is because I AM a conservative, and not a liberal, and so tend to look more closely at liberals. It's the 'volkswagon syndrome' gone nutty.

But at least I AM aware of it in myself.

 

[Father Heathen]

Of course they do.

.....and I see more liberals do it than I do conservatives.

I'm also QUITE aware that the reason I do so is because I AM a conservative, and not a liberal, and so tend to look more closely at liberals. It's the 'volkswagon syndrome' gone nutty.

But at least I AM aware of it in myself.

I know both "sides" are guilty, but I see it more often with conservatives, especially in regards to Trump.
Voting for him because he's the "lesser evil" and the one who best matches your views? Fine. But worshiping him like he's some perfect, infallible godking who's above reproach? Surely you see a problem with that.

 

[dianaiad]

I know both "sides" are guilty, but I see it more often with conservatives, especially in regards to Trump.
Voting for him because he's the "lesser evil" and the one who best matches your views? Fine. But worshiping him like he's some perfect, infallible godking who's above reproach? Surely you see a problem with that.

Well, you certainly can't accuse me of THAT, at least.

However, unless someone comes up with a liberal (or shoot, a libertarian) with whom I can agree politically, it's 'hold my nose and vote for Trump"

Because IMO, He IS doing a good job as POTUS. At least, the USA is in better financial shape than it's been for a long time.

And as I mentioned earlier, if you can find an upright, moral person to be POTUS, take a picture because in two minutes, he won't be upright or moral.

As much as I loathe to compare modern politicians to the poetry of John Donne, I can't help but think of this;

Go and catch a falling star,
Get with child a mandrake root,
Tell me, where all past years are,
Or who cleft the devil's foot,
Teach me to hear mermaids singing,
Or to keep off envy's stinging
Or find
What wind
Serves to advance an honest mind.

If thou be'st born to strange sights,
Things invisible to see
Ride ten thousand days and nights
Till age snow white hairs on thee
Thou, when thou return't, wilt tell me
All strange wonders that befell thee
And swear
Nowhere
Lives a woman true and fair

If thou find'st one, let me know;
Such a pilgrimage were sweet
Yet do not; I would not go,
Though at next door we might meet.
Though se were true when you met her,
And last till you write your letter,
Yet she
Will be
False, ere I come, to two or three.

So, when you are talking about politicians, teach me to hear mermaids singing, and we'll be good.

 

[metis]

So, when a 21 woman repeatedly stated that she had consensual sex with the president, then that must be rape?

Now don't get me wrong, consensual or not, it was terribly wrong, imo, for Bill to have sex with her or any other woman that's not his wife.

BTW, I wonder how the Trump supporters deal with the 20 women who have claimed that Trump sexually assaulted them? "Oh, that's different..." we hear, "... as that's not been proven". Double standard much?

 

[dianaiad]

So, when a 21 woman repeatedly stated that she had consensual sex with the president, then that must be rape?

I think so, yeah...and if Clinton had been a Republican, you would think so too.

Now don't get me wrong, consensual or not, it was terribly wrong, imo, for Bill to have sex with her or any other woman that's not his wife.

yep. And the fact that there was so incredible a disparity between the power of the one and the powerlessness of the other makes it, IMO, rape.

Consider: if she had been three years younger, it would have been called 'rape' no matter how much she yelled 'consent." Now, again, this is my opinion and it has no legal standing.

BTW, I wonder how the Trump supporters deal with the 20 women who have claimed that Trump sexually assaulted them? "Oh, that's different..." we hear, "... as that's not been proven". Double standard much?

Is it?

Accusations do not equal proof.

Clinton has been ACCUSED of rape and sexual assault by quite a few women, and has even been accused of murder. Notice that I'm not referring to any event that hasn't been PROVEN. Now, if I were to use the same standard you do, I would be calling him very much a serial rapist, AND a murderer, AND a traitor, AND a whole bunch of other things. But I'm not. I refer only to those things which have been proved, settled in a court of law, and for which Clinton was convicted and punished.

So.

Double standard much?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think that if we could find a moral politician, take a picture quick because in two seconds s/he won't be. All we really have to go by are the promises, the actual results of policies, and whether said politician will/can do what s/he SAYS s/he will do.

I just saw a video this morning by someone who says that the Dems will PROBABLY go for Bernie...because doing so will allow them to think that they REALLY want all the socialist/communist/feel good policies Sanders says he wants, but because there is NO WAY a Republican controlled house or Senate will allow him to actually DO anything he says he wants to do, they are, in reality, safe. A figurehead president who looks virtuous but can't exactly DO anything.

Because of course nobody wants him to actually be able to DO anything he's campaigning on. they just want to look good, like those 'whited sepulchers' the NT talks about; looking good and 'virtue signaling and political correct speech is important, but heaven help the nation if he actually gets his way with anything.

I figure that this guy is probably right; it's all about appearance, not actuality. If these guys thought for one second that Bernie would succeed in anything he says he wants to do, he'd be total toast.

There are levels of morality. Consider: who would you prefer to be close to the nuclear briefcase, Trump or Bernie? Nuclear briefcase - Wikipedia

And again, do you believe in property rights? How do you feel about a President willing to use government authority to remove private property based on classist ideals?

 

[Heyo]

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.

Nobody is perfect. So I'm willing to let some moral lapses slide. Also, people change. Long past events, if admitted and retributed, have no effect on the decision. Events that are morally questionable but not illegal, OK.
Ongoing moral failure that could influence decision making in office - a big red flag.

 

[Stevicus]

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 would put some importance on it, but it's not as important as the issues and a candidate's stance on those issues. Another problem is that a lot of the information related to "character" often comes down to rumors, gossip, and innuendo propagated by others.