As compared to whom?
Why do we have to compare him to someone to determine if he is acting immorally?
Somehow I knew that qixlatl wouldn’t get a real response to his question. Are we comparing the President to the third of Americans who have committed adultery? Are we comparing him to many American presidents both contemporary and historical, including more that one serial adulterers while in the White House? Are we comparing him to presidents who have lied about it under oath? Are we comparing him to presidents and presidential candidates who have used “public service” to leave office wealthy? I am fascinated by liberals who are obsessed with morality. Of course it is only with their political opponents. Liberals never do anything immoral since, in their eyes, nothing is a sin.
To define the standard by which he is being judged. Since you evaded the question, I have to assume your judgement is based on an emotional reaction rather than any objective criteria.
How does picking another person “set a standard”?
I didn’t “evade the question”, I asked for clarification.
How is my response an emotional reaction?
Because it’s kind of a dumb question. Shouldn’t we really be discussing the acts we find immoral rather than trying to phrase things relative to another person?
If adultery were the only issue in determining morality, that might be useful, but we know that’s not the case.
The other issue is, what’s worse, cheating on your wife 10 years ago, or doing it while you’re in the Whitehouse?
Doing it while you’re in the WH is worse, but that doesn’t make cheating 10 years ago moral. They are both immoral.
However, when judging the character of a person, like a President, who has quite a bit of power and influence, if they admitted their mistakes and didn’t use the vast resources available to them to hide their transgressions, I would think that would speak very highly of their character despite their immorality of the past (not necessarily to the point of forgiveness, that would depend on the circumstances).
Having said that, if a President Cheated on his wife while in the Whitehouse and admitted what he did vs a President who cheated on his wife 10 years ago and abused the power of his office to hide it. I would have a lot more respect for the person that admits it and subjects themselves to the consequences than someone who undermines the institutions of our government for their own self-serving purposes.
If you are speaking of Clinton…I think what he did was wrong. I think what was worse is how he used the influence of his position as Governor and President to evade the consequences of the things he did.
Now I’m a bit younger than some of you and I’d like to tell you I was steeped in politics at 20 something, but I wasn’t. I remember thinking what he did was wrong, but I didn’t understand at the time how important it was to protect the institutions of our government.
If Clinton were in office today I would, without question support his impeachment (because I assume that’s what Q’s question was really all about) because of the way that he and his supporters, including his wife, used their power and influence to hide the truth. And yes, I think that Clinton is probably guilty of the sexual transgressions that we were accused of just as I think that Trump is probably guilty of the things he is accused of.
Long meandering post not touching the question. Nice try at diversion. But we are getting somewhere. If adultery is not the only issue AND “we know that’s not the case”, please illustrate these other factors with SPECIFIC FACTS. I don’t need to be treated with another litany list “lies”. Everyone in the beltway lies and most lie about lying except poor little Hope Hicks who was driven out of town for being too honest about it.
I’ve never really understood how someone thinks either Bill Clinton or Donald Trump “cheated”. Neither of these men are even remotely capable of monogamy and I’m quite sure that both Hilary and Milania are aware of it. They had open marriages to start with.
It doesn’t. It would tell us what the ‘standard’ is that you are using. Your non-answer told me as much as any individual you could have picked, though.
Compared to Mother Teresa, yeah, he’s a POS-- but then, so am I.
But compared to Hillary? Comey? McCabe? Strzok? Page? Clapper? Brennan? He’s no worse than the best of them. I’d bet Mueller and Rosenstein are less than squeaky clean, too.
Trump is an authoritarian nihilist with zero respect, humility, or sense of decorum regarding the powers he’s been granted. He’s a compulsive liar. A sexual abuser. He seems to have no genuine understanding of the basic principles and values of republicanism. On any issue relating to Obama administration outrages (viz., using political power to go after one’s opponents), Trump is breaking new ground for abuse (for example, putting pressure on Amazon because he doesn’t like the reporting on him in the Washington Post, which is 100% authoritarian move.)
I actually don’t care that either of them “cheated” and most Americans don’t care either. There was plenty of other stuff to impeach Bill Clinton. They chose lying under oath about cheating as the easiest to prove. Lies, high crimes, misdemeanors, adultery etc. mean absolutely nothing in impeachment and removal from office. It is purely political. The necessary and sufficient reason is will the public stand for it? If the assault by the media cannot drive Trump’s approval numbers down to Nixonian levels, it ain’t gonna happen.
Setting the cheating aside, it’s the lying and covering it up that most Americans care about.
Again, it’s the abuses of office that are the problem. If all Trump did was cheat on his wife it would be a HUGE improvement.
All adulterers try to cover it up. Some lie about it under oath, some don’t. I know the Trump haters are almost out of ammo but most Americans don’t care. Everybody knew about it before electing for him.
LOL. HILARIOUS! J. Anderson lecturing us on the “basic principals and values of republicanism?” President Trump is a “counter-puncher.” You hit at him and hits back…harder.
My Merriam-Webster disagrees:
sin n [ME sinne, fr. OE synn; akin to OHG sunta sin] (bef. 12c) 1 a : an offense against religious or moral law b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it’s a ~ to waste food> 2 a : A transgression of the law of God b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God syn see OFFENSE
Note definition 1 a.
As compared to whom? How is he worse than his predecessors, or his electoral opponent?
What’s so respectable about the status quo?
Heh, probably fair. But again, as compared to whom?
I suspect this is the crux of most objections to Trump: he one of THOSE yucky nouveau riche types that doesn’t care about with which fork to eat what dish. He seems to think results matter more than process. How gauche!
Evidence for the compulsion? Is he more dishonest than any other president? More than his bureaucratic detractors who have routinely lied to congress?
What “new ground”? Did he sic the IRS on amazon? All I know of is he vocalized his displeasure. What action did he take?
I think in all respects mentioned, he is considerably worse than anyone else who has ever held the office, or that has been the candidate for a major party. Politics is a dirty business, but I think the effort to establish a sort of moral relativism around politics in order to protect Trump from criticism is a sign of decay. There have been presidents before Trump who behaved in an authoritarian manner. What sets Trump apart is the seeming lack of any scruples regarding his use of power, or any sense of awe or humility at the incredible power that has been bestowed upon him. He doesn’t seem to possess any capacity for, or willingness to engage in, serious moral thought. Bush and Obama, for example, while being politicians, were in my opinion both making a sincere effort to engage in moral leadership. They were thoughtful, respectful of the office, aware of the moral weight of the presidency. Anyone who reaches that level will have an ego. But both of those men had at least some ability to self-reflect and, from time to time, admit fault. Trump possesses none of these basic moral skills. He’s a sociopath. I find it terrifying that a man like this has gained this much power, and I think it really speaks to what a dangerous democracy this country has become. If we can hand a man this debauched such a supreme power…where do we go from here? Does it get worse?
I don’t know if this is actually accurate, but I have always perceived “immorality” as having continuity. Whereas a sin can technically be an isolated incident. I may be incorrect, but that’s always how I read it.
I think this really gets down to how one perceives honesty and truth. Trump lies more than anyone I have ever actually seen. If we mean “statements that are factually incorrect”. Trump in my opinion actually has a difficult time even distinguishing between truth and lies when it comes to small details. He’s a big picture thinker, and a directional thinker. Details are not his thing. He considers them unimportant. And so he very, very frequently tramples them.
Trump also lies to confuse. Most people have a very hard time figuring out what Trump believes about almost anything. I don’t - because we actually have a similar thought process. So far, Trump has really yet to surprise me.
But, he will state 5 totally different opinions on something and people are very confused by this. I will say, this is two things going on at once. One is misdirection.
Another is that Trump genuinely feels that different positions have merit. And he literally steps into the belief fully to try it out. That’s the biggest thing that nobody gets about Trump. He explores ideas by pretending he believes them.
He explains this in the Art of the Deal. No one seems to notice that part though.
Trump is not an intellectual. He’s a brilliant pragmatist with great instincts. He couldn’t explain to you how he does what he does, because it’s not compatible with formal logic.
Most of Trump’s critics insist he’s not very bright. One must wonder how he consistently keeps beating people who are so very much smarter than him.