Trump and the Character of a President

[Shad]

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.

If the voters cared about character most POTUS would never has seen the WH.

 

[Heyo]

If the voters cared about character most POTUS would never has seen the WH.

“Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Shad]

“Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Which disqualifies almost every POTUS after 1830.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

If the voters cared about character most POTUS would never has seen the WH.

Not all characters are the same and not all voters agree on what "character" is best.

 

[dianaiad]

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

Trump. infinitely Trump. Why? Because Trump is a pragmatist and a business man He's quite aware that using the nuke means he's lost.

Bernie is an idealogue who would think that using the nuke would actually result in the world he wants. I'd be a lot more worried about Bernie if he weren't so obviously old, forgetful and senile. Of course, the 'senile' part is a bit scary, but between the two, I'd rather have Trump carry the football.

He won't use it UNLESS there is absolutely no choice....as in, someone else has nuked us first and that's the only way out. Bernie will use it to enforce one of his ideologies. I'm afraid.

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?

'

You mean the way Clinton did in Utah?

 

[Howard Is]

I am pretty much apolitical, and not a US citizen, but Trump makes my skin crawl.
It is an instinctual reaction.
I have been abused by a psychopath/narcissist (actually more than one), and my psychological immune system flashes red lights every time I see him.

I don’t think his remarks about still being President for years to come is just a joke to annoy Democrats. I don’t expect him to achieve it, but I feel sure he is looking for a way.

He is a very sick and dangerous man. Epstein and Weinstein have got nothing on this predator. He shows no empathetic emotion, he boasts about his corruption, he has a myopic world view, he is hopelessly uneducated, and he has the support of millions.

No need to name names of previous famous monsters who also enjoyed the support of millions. He has tapped into a streak of malignant megalomania which has been the fly in the ointment of American culture (and not only American culture) for a long time, and has enabled some very bad international actions. Like some previous famous monsters in world history.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Trump. infinitely Trump. Why? Because Trump is a pragmatist and a business man He's quite aware that using the nuke means he's lost.

Bernie is an idealogue who would think that using the nuke would actually result in the world he wants. I'd be a lot more worried about Bernie if he weren't so obviously old, forgetful and senile. Of course, the 'senile' part is a bit scary, but between the two, I'd rather have Trump carry the football.

He won't use it UNLESS there is absolutely no choice....as in, someone else has nuked us first and that's the only way out. Bernie will use it to enforce one of his ideologies. I'm afraid.

Trump is also an ideologue, though, and Bernie is also a pragmatist. They are just idealistic and pragmatic about different things. Economy and profit vs human and environmental welfare.

And don't forget the similar claims of Trump's health and mental state.

You seem to putting your own assumptions about Bernie into your argument. What makes you suppose he would use nukes to get "the world he wants"?

Let's look at their actual characters.

Trump is notoriously heavy handed and unpredictable as a politician. He has shown nothing to suggest he has a repulsion to using weapons of mass destruction, including his use of the "Mother of All Bombs" in Afghanistan and his development of new low-yield nuclear warheads. He also shows a lack of concern for environmental issues.

Bernie on the other hand does show an interest in environmental issues and has stated his stance on eliminating nuclear weapons:
Statement: Sanders Calls for Limiting Nuclear Proliferation

His ideologies run counter to the use of nuclear weapons.

I would suspect that were the US bombed with a nuke, Trump would be likely to nuke back. I suspect Bernie would think twice. And I would back the decision not to retaliate with nuclear weapons.

You mean the way Clinton did in Utah?

Possibly. What did he do? Either way, that's not answering the question.

 

[Stevicus]

I am pretty much apolitical, and not a US citizen, but Trump makes my skin crawl.
It is an instinctual reaction.

One of my first jobs as a kid was working in an upscale hotel which mostly catered to businesspeople, executive types, etc. I was in a position to be able to observe these people "in their natural habitat," so to speak. While I've never encountered Trump personally, I've encountered numerous people who are very much like Trump in terms of their mannerisms and personality type. In my observation, these kind of people abound throughout society (although considering what you're saying I'm beginning to think that this may be more of an American phenomenon).

My mother used to work for various film production companies and law firms in the LA area, and she would describe some of the most horrible human beings one could ever imagine.

This is one of the reasons why I've generally been mystified by those who act so shocked and offended by Trump's antics, as if they've never encountered or observed anything like that in their lives. Maybe they've never seen it in a president, but it had to happen sooner or later.

Alec Baldwin is a natural to satirize Trump, since he plays the role so well. It was quite similar with the key role he played in the film Glengarry Glenross. He plays the role of the typical American executive so well, and these are the kinds of people who run our industries and make decisions which affect the lives of millions of people.

This is why I think Trump is more of a symptom than anything else. The problem we're dealing with cuts to the very fabric of our culture, and that's something that few people actually want to deal with.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If the voters cared about character most POTUS would never has seen the WH.

Andrew Jackson's wild parties in the White House.....

Talk softly and carry a big stick.....

Bush giving the finger......

I think there's a reason for it and Trump put his finger on it......

On Day 1,001, Trump Made It Clear: Being ‘Presidential’ Is Boring

 

[Stevicus]

Andrew Jackson's wild parties in the White House.....

I remember reading about his inauguration party, which was quite the free for all. Jackson hung out with a wild bunch, apparently. Even he couldn't keep them under control, as he had to sneak out the window and spend the night in a hotel.

 

[pearl]

Character here is irrelevant. Remember this guy?

Bannon broke the agenda down into three categories. pointing to economic nationalism, national sovereignty, and the deconstruction of the administrative state.
Bannon broke the agenda down into three categories. pointing to economic nationalism, national sovereignty, and the deconstruction of the administrative state.
Steve Bannon Details Trump Agenda: Deconstruction of the Administrative State

 

[Shad]

Character here is irrelevant. Remember this guy?

Bannon broke the agenda down into three categories. pointing to economic nationalism, national sovereignty, and the deconstruction of the administrative state.
Bannon broke the agenda down into three categories. pointing to economic nationalism, national sovereignty, and the deconstruction of the administrative state.
Steve Bannon Details Trump Agenda: Deconstruction of the Administrative State

Did you read what you linked or did you just REEEE when you saw the word nationalism?

 

[Shad]

Andrew Jackson's wild parties in the White House.....

Talk softly and carry a big stick.....

Bush giving the finger......

I think there's a reason for it and Trump put his finger on it......

On Day 1,001, Trump Made It Clear: Being ‘Presidential’ Is Boring

Trump's character isn't one that lends itself to the time sinks required by the job nor some of the PR duties. Look up Trump's rallies or speeches about a topic he wants versus standard POTUS speeches. You can see a change in his behavior and energy levels between the two.

 

[Shad]

Not all characters are the same and not all voters agree on what "character" is best.

There seems to be an expectation when it comes to POTUS that even I think Trump do not meet what so ever.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

There seems to be an expectation when it comes to POTUS that even I think Trump do not meet what so ever.

Unreasonable expectations would you say? How would you relate these expectations to other community leaders who take on responsibilities that intimately affect people?

 

[Shad]

Unreasonable expectations would you say?

Yes as the view is mostly based on optics. It seems like every 2nd POTUS has major issues but cover it by smooth talking. Trump doesn't care to smooth talk the public at large.

How would you relate these expectations to other community leaders who take on responsibilities that intimately affect people?

Stop placing one's wishes on to people they do not know.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes as the view is mostly based on optics. It seems like every 2nd POTUS has major issues but cover it by smooth talking. Trump doesn't care to smooth talk the public at large.

Part of being diplomatic, though, is understanding social etiquette, and part of social etiquette is adjusting the content of your speech to context.

Smooth talk is, most often, a political tool to win over people. Trump smooth talks, just in a different dialect than normal, and this is to appease the public. It's just a different subset of it.

Stop placing one's wishes on to people they do not know.

It's more complicated than that. When someone in authority is able affect people through policy, law enforcement, and public influence it's not about wishes, it's about responsibility.

 

[Shad]

Part of being diplomatic, though, is understanding social etiquette, and part of social etiquette is adjusting the content of your speech to context.

That isn't required. In fact that is part of the problem with governments. Many refuse to call a spade a spade when interacting with other nations. They play stupid games, blow smoke and fool no one above an IQ of 70. Wasted energy just for theater and PR.

Smooth talk is, most often, a political tool to win over people.

Ergo deception.

Trump smooth talks, just in a different dialect than normal, and this is to appease the public. It's just a different subset of it.

Ergo deception.

It's more complicated than that. [/quote[

Nope

When someone in authority is able affect people through policy, law enforcement, and public influence it's not about wishes, it's about responsibility.

You have changed the topic from a method of speech to policy.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

That isn't required. In fact that is part of the problem with governments. Many refuse to call a spade a spade when interacting with other nations. They play stupid games, blow smoke and fool no one above an IQ of 70. Wasted energy just for theater and PR.

That is less about diplomacy and more about your smooth talk and deception, I would suggest.

Diplomacy requires understanding cultural and social nuances and being able to adjust one's speech to the context. It's the difference between making fun of your buddy's wife at the bar, and making fun of your political rival's wife on the public stage. Or a voter having juvenile nicknames for people he disagrees with and the President doing so publicly and as a matter of record.

Ergo deception.

Yup.

You have changed the topic from a method of speech to policy.

I have not. The topic split at post #56.

 

[Shad]

That is less about diplomacy and more about your smooth talk and deception, I would suggest.

Often both go hand in hand. Take the relationship between the US with KSA and Pakistan.

Diplomacy requires understanding cultural and social nuances and being able to adjust one's speech to the context.

No it does. You are conflating government interaction with cultural exchanges between normal people.

It's the difference between making fun of your buddy's wife at the bar, and making fun of your political rival's wife on the public stage.

No it isn't. You just object to the joke, target and audience scale while projecting you idea of what is acceptable to the voter. Remember that Trump beat Cruz. You invoke context but ignore it later.

[Or a voter having juvenile nicknames for people he disagrees with and the President doing so publicly and as a matter of record.

Again you are just projecting a standard from your head.

I have not. The topic split at post #56.

We are not discussing that part of the topic. You and another user are.