CSNbbs
Trump Administration - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+------ Forum: Rice Archives (/forum-640.html)
+------ Thread: Trump Administration (/thread-797972.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656


RE: Trump Administration - JustAnotherAustinOwlStill - 02-14-2018 12:52 PM

In any other administration, the whole porn star payoff would be a huge scandal, not a footnote.

So now we are supposed to believe Trump's lawyer paid a porn star six figures out of is own pocket - for no particular reason? Doesn't even come close to passing the smell test.


RE: Trump Administration - 75src - 02-14-2018 11:09 PM

Heard the same thing at an all day Continuing Legal Education course.
There is a pattern to the abuse. They do it and then appear to make up for it and the abuse happens again. The abuser is trying to smother and control the victim. The most dangerous time is when the victim decides to leave the abuser.

(02-11-2018 05:58 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  We are not just talking about any job here – this stuff came up in an FBI background check because it’s a position that needs to have security clearance to see what the POTUS sees. As Chris Christie said this morning (DJT has me quoting *another* person I never thought I’d quote!) the evidence was pretty damn convincing in this one, and it’s not random accusations - it’s FBI vetting for a security clearance.

The reports are that the WH knew about this in January. Of 2017. It’s blowing up in their faces now because they did nothing and tried to hide it. They have known for a year he wasn’t going to get permanent security clearance, but let him continue to work there on his temporary clearance.

That doesn’t even get to the moral issue. Setting aside security clearance, why were they OK with letting a guy like this work with them? Where is their moral compass, their sense of basic decency? But not surprising since Trump did not utter one word of sympathy to the women in his statement. Merely lamented the effect on Porter, the abuser.

My wife volunteers at Safe Place in Austin, which aides women and children who are victims of abuse. It’s really opened my eyes to how much truly horrible stuff goes on out there. It is rarely ever “a one time thing” – most abusers are serial abusers. Women in this country literally die because we as a society don’t take their claims seriously and we send them back to the abusers. And then we wonder why so many won’t speak up. But no, you’re right Donald. The real victims are the abusers.

Just when I think this admin can’t get any more disgusting.



RE: Trump Administration - 75src - 02-14-2018 11:11 PM

Why would the porn star admit to having sex with someone as disgusting as Trump?

(02-14-2018 12:52 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  In any other administration, the whole porn star payoff would be a huge scandal, not a footnote.

So now we are supposed to believe Trump's lawyer paid a porn star six figures out of is own pocket - for no particular reason? Doesn't even come close to passing the smell test.



RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 02-15-2018 08:41 AM

(02-14-2018 11:11 PM)75src Wrote:  Why would the porn star admit to having sex with someone as disgusting as Trump?

(02-14-2018 12:52 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  In any other administration, the whole porn star payoff would be a huge scandal, not a footnote.

So now we are supposed to believe Trump's lawyer paid a porn star six figures out of is own pocket - for no particular reason? Doesn't even come close to passing the smell test.

Money would be my guess.


RE: Trump Administration - JSA - 02-15-2018 09:14 AM

Three things ruin a man: power, money, and women.

Harry Truman


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 02-15-2018 09:15 AM

Back in town for a while.


Read the responses. ColOwl in particular had a good one. some of the others smack of kids around a campfire chortling at the Scoutmaster.

So, in no particular order:

at times, DV has touched on my life through my family. In particular, my sister's first husband punched her. When we heard, my dad and I went over and read him the riot act. What we didn't do was demand he lose his job. Result: although he and my sister later divorced, there was no repeat of the DV. He is currently my neighbor, on land I sold to him, and there has been no hint of DV in his subsequent marriages covering 50 years. So I don't understand the current fashion of a DV male being unfit for employment. Especially I don't see that every person accused should be fired or resign immediately.

As for the security clearance, he should have been cleared or rejected long ago, and if rejected, not used in that job. The curious thing to me is that the people most up in arms on this had no objection to the top aide to a presidential nominee emailing confidential documents to a pedophile. some people claim it was a security risk since he could be blackmailed. Well, that is no longer a concern. Hard to blackmail a person over public knowledge.

If President Trump slept with a porn "star", that's between him and Melania. Just the way I felt about Bill's multiple affairs (until he committed perjury). Same as Spitzer. I don't find reports that he paid her out of his own pocket to silence her odd - which of us could not lay our hands on .000013 of our net worth to silence a blackmailer? If one of you cannot, you are not liquid enough or not well off enough to blackmail.

Gotta go for now. You guys enjoy your chortlefest.


RE: Trump Administration - Frizzy Owl - 02-15-2018 09:25 AM

(02-14-2018 12:52 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  In any other administration, the whole porn star payoff would be a huge scandal, not a footnote.

So now we are supposed to believe Trump's lawyer paid a porn star six figures out of is own pocket - for no particular reason? Doesn't even come close to passing the smell test.

Scandal, yes. Not sure how huge, this soon after the Clinton administration.

Presumably he paid her to keep silent until after the election.


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 02-15-2018 09:49 AM

(02-15-2018 09:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(02-14-2018 12:52 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  In any other administration, the whole porn star payoff would be a huge scandal, not a footnote.

So now we are supposed to believe Trump's lawyer paid a porn star six figures out of is own pocket - for no particular reason? Doesn't even come close to passing the smell test.

Scandal, yes. Not sure how huge, this soon after the Clinton administration.

And Kennedy, and the other Kennedy, and Spitzer, and Edwards, and Weiner.

I guess the Spitzer thing is closest to this. Married man paying a woman of dubious background. I never felt so sorry for a woman as I did for Spitzer's wife when she had to stand there while he made his public confession. He is a commentator on MSM now. Constantly rails at Trump. I wonder where she is.


RE: Trump Administration - georgewebb - 02-15-2018 10:04 AM

(02-15-2018 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 09:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(02-14-2018 12:52 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  In any other administration, the whole porn star payoff would be a huge scandal, not a footnote.

So now we are supposed to believe Trump's lawyer paid a porn star six figures out of is own pocket - for no particular reason? Doesn't even come close to passing the smell test.

Scandal, yes. Not sure how huge, this soon after the Clinton administration.

And Kennedy, and the other Kennedy, and Spitzer, and Edwards, and Weiner.

I guess the Spitzer thing is closest to this. Married man paying a woman of dubious background. I never felt so sorry for a woman as I did for Spitzer's wife when she had to stand there while he made his public confession. He is a commentator on MSM now. Constantly rails at Trump. I wonder where she is.

Remember that guy John Edwards? His story was one the most astonishingly sleazy I've ever heard.

He ended up in the political dustbin, but he is still quite rich, and back in the ambulance-chasing business.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 02-15-2018 10:59 AM

(02-15-2018 10:04 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 09:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(02-14-2018 12:52 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  In any other administration, the whole porn star payoff would be a huge scandal, not a footnote.

So now we are supposed to believe Trump's lawyer paid a porn star six figures out of is own pocket - for no particular reason? Doesn't even come close to passing the smell test.

Scandal, yes. Not sure how huge, this soon after the Clinton administration.

And Kennedy, and the other Kennedy, and Spitzer, and Edwards, and Weiner.

I guess the Spitzer thing is closest to this. Married man paying a woman of dubious background. I never felt so sorry for a woman as I did for Spitzer's wife when she had to stand there while he made his public confession. He is a commentator on MSM now. Constantly rails at Trump. I wonder where she is.

Remember that guy John Edwards? His story was one the most astonishingly sleazy I've ever heard.

He ended up in the political dustbin, but he is still quite rich, and back in the ambulance-chasing business.

Let's not leave ol' Newt out of this, considering how ironic it was he was railing against Clinton for issues that centered around sex and infidelity, all the while cheating on his wife. A little irony there.

Both parties are full of pretty scummy characters - it's just nice to see that those on the right who used to try falsely hold up the flame of moral superiority in this field finally implicitly admit it was all a sham.

So long as things are consensual, I could care less how many porn stars one beds, how many wives on has, etc. I do think there is something to be said for one's character in how they go about those things (as in, being honest and open with one's spouse, etc.) but it's nice that these consensual transgressions are not really killers of one's aspirations.


RE: Trump Administration - Frizzy Owl - 02-15-2018 11:09 AM

(02-15-2018 10:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 10:04 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 09:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(02-14-2018 12:52 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  In any other administration, the whole porn star payoff would be a huge scandal, not a footnote.

So now we are supposed to believe Trump's lawyer paid a porn star six figures out of is own pocket - for no particular reason? Doesn't even come close to passing the smell test.

Scandal, yes. Not sure how huge, this soon after the Clinton administration.

And Kennedy, and the other Kennedy, and Spitzer, and Edwards, and Weiner.

I guess the Spitzer thing is closest to this. Married man paying a woman of dubious background. I never felt so sorry for a woman as I did for Spitzer's wife when she had to stand there while he made his public confession. He is a commentator on MSM now. Constantly rails at Trump. I wonder where she is.

Remember that guy John Edwards? His story was one the most astonishingly sleazy I've ever heard.

He ended up in the political dustbin, but he is still quite rich, and back in the ambulance-chasing business.

Let's not leave ol' Newt out of this, considering how ironic it was he was railing against Clinton for issues that centered around sex and infidelity, all the while cheating on his wife. A little irony there.

Both parties are full of pretty scummy characters - it's just nice to see that those on the right who used to try falsely hold up the flame of moral superiority in this field finally implicitly admit it was all a sham.

So long as things are consensual, I could care less how many porn stars one beds, how many wives on has, etc. I do think there is something to be said for one's character in how they go about those things (as in, being honest and open with one's spouse, etc.) but it's nice that these consensual transgressions are not really killers of one's aspirations.

We get the government we deserve.


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 02-15-2018 11:21 AM

(02-15-2018 10:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 10:04 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 09:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(02-14-2018 12:52 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  In any other administration, the whole porn star payoff would be a huge scandal, not a footnote.

So now we are supposed to believe Trump's lawyer paid a porn star six figures out of is own pocket - for no particular reason? Doesn't even come close to passing the smell test.

Scandal, yes. Not sure how huge, this soon after the Clinton administration.

And Kennedy, and the other Kennedy, and Spitzer, and Edwards, and Weiner.

I guess the Spitzer thing is closest to this. Married man paying a woman of dubious background. I never felt so sorry for a woman as I did for Spitzer's wife when she had to stand there while he made his public confession. He is a commentator on MSM now. Constantly rails at Trump. I wonder where she is.

Remember that guy John Edwards? His story was one the most astonishingly sleazy I've ever heard.

He ended up in the political dustbin, but he is still quite rich, and back in the ambulance-chasing business.

Let's not leave ol' Newt out of this, considering how ironic it was he was railing against Clinton for issues that centered around sex and infidelity, all the while cheating on his wife. A little irony there.

Both parties are full of pretty scummy characters - it's just nice to see that those on the right who used to try falsely hold up the flame of moral superiority in this field finally implicitly admit it was all a sham.

So long as things are consensual, I could care less how many porn stars one beds, how many wives on has, etc. I do think there is something to be said for one's character in how they go about those things (as in, being honest and open with one's spouse, etc.) but it's nice that these consensual transgressions are not really killers of one's aspirations.

are you married, Lad?

Lots of marriages have survived infidelity. most of those survived because the betrayed spouse never knew. mine survived for years - until I knew.


RE: Trump Administration - JSA - 02-15-2018 11:41 AM

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/character/transcript/trans1.html


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 02-15-2018 11:57 AM

(02-15-2018 11:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 10:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 10:04 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 09:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Scandal, yes. Not sure how huge, this soon after the Clinton administration.

And Kennedy, and the other Kennedy, and Spitzer, and Edwards, and Weiner.

I guess the Spitzer thing is closest to this. Married man paying a woman of dubious background. I never felt so sorry for a woman as I did for Spitzer's wife when she had to stand there while he made his public confession. He is a commentator on MSM now. Constantly rails at Trump. I wonder where she is.

Remember that guy John Edwards? His story was one the most astonishingly sleazy I've ever heard.

He ended up in the political dustbin, but he is still quite rich, and back in the ambulance-chasing business.

Let's not leave ol' Newt out of this, considering how ironic it was he was railing against Clinton for issues that centered around sex and infidelity, all the while cheating on his wife. A little irony there.

Both parties are full of pretty scummy characters - it's just nice to see that those on the right who used to try falsely hold up the flame of moral superiority in this field finally implicitly admit it was all a sham.

So long as things are consensual, I could care less how many porn stars one beds, how many wives on has, etc. I do think there is something to be said for one's character in how they go about those things (as in, being honest and open with one's spouse, etc.) but it's nice that these consensual transgressions are not really killers of one's aspirations.

are you married, Lad?

Lots of marriages have survived infidelity. most of those survived because the betrayed spouse never knew. mine survived for years - until I knew.

What's your point? How does my personal marital status matter to my opinion about how politicians act in the bed room?

As long as two adults are consenting, that act itself doesn't matter to me, and are not automatic disqualifies for someone to run for office. I fail to see how my marital status matters.


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 02-15-2018 04:10 PM

(02-15-2018 11:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 11:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 10:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 10:04 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And Kennedy, and the other Kennedy, and Spitzer, and Edwards, and Weiner.

I guess the Spitzer thing is closest to this. Married man paying a woman of dubious background. I never felt so sorry for a woman as I did for Spitzer's wife when she had to stand there while he made his public confession. He is a commentator on MSM now. Constantly rails at Trump. I wonder where she is.

Remember that guy John Edwards? His story was one the most astonishingly sleazy I've ever heard.

He ended up in the political dustbin, but he is still quite rich, and back in the ambulance-chasing business.

Let's not leave ol' Newt out of this, considering how ironic it was he was railing against Clinton for issues that centered around sex and infidelity, all the while cheating on his wife. A little irony there.

Both parties are full of pretty scummy characters - it's just nice to see that those on the right who used to try falsely hold up the flame of moral superiority in this field finally implicitly admit it was all a sham.

So long as things are consensual, I could care less how many porn stars one beds, how many wives on has, etc. I do think there is something to be said for one's character in how they go about those things (as in, being honest and open with one's spouse, etc.) but it's nice that these consensual transgressions are not really killers of one's aspirations.

are you married, Lad?

Lots of marriages have survived infidelity. most of those survived because the betrayed spouse never knew. mine survived for years - until I knew.

What's your point? How does my personal marital status matter to my opinion about how politicians act in the bed room?

As long as two adults are consenting, that act itself doesn't matter to me, and are not automatic disqualifies for someone to run for office. I fail to see how my marital status matters.

It was this:

"...being honest and open with one's spouse, etc."

It kind of smacks of a an inexperience in marital matters, like you think Trump should have told Melania, "Hey Hon, I'm going to have sex with a porn star tonight, don't wait up" and she would have answered "Fine darling, as long as you are honest and open about it". In other words, a bit idealistic.

Not that it doesn't happen. One of my cousins lives in a house with her husband AND her lover. However, that came about partially because her husband is a devout Catholic who will not divorce and also is a stubborn man who will not be run out of his house. But I bet she does not have his OK on the situation, even though she is honest and open about the matter. BTW, the most far left of my cousins, a LULAC member.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 02-15-2018 04:42 PM

(02-15-2018 04:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 11:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 11:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 10:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 10:04 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Remember that guy John Edwards? His story was one the most astonishingly sleazy I've ever heard.

He ended up in the political dustbin, but he is still quite rich, and back in the ambulance-chasing business.

Let's not leave ol' Newt out of this, considering how ironic it was he was railing against Clinton for issues that centered around sex and infidelity, all the while cheating on his wife. A little irony there.

Both parties are full of pretty scummy characters - it's just nice to see that those on the right who used to try falsely hold up the flame of moral superiority in this field finally implicitly admit it was all a sham.

So long as things are consensual, I could care less how many porn stars one beds, how many wives on has, etc. I do think there is something to be said for one's character in how they go about those things (as in, being honest and open with one's spouse, etc.) but it's nice that these consensual transgressions are not really killers of one's aspirations.

are you married, Lad?

Lots of marriages have survived infidelity. most of those survived because the betrayed spouse never knew. mine survived for years - until I knew.

What's your point? How does my personal marital status matter to my opinion about how politicians act in the bed room?

As long as two adults are consenting, that act itself doesn't matter to me, and are not automatic disqualifies for someone to run for office. I fail to see how my marital status matters.

It was this:

"...being honest and open with one's spouse, etc."

It kind of smacks of a an inexperience in marital matters, like you think Trump should have told Melania, "Hey Hon, I'm going to have sex with a porn star tonight, don't wait up" and she would have answered "Fine darling, as long as you are honest and open about it". In other words, a bit idealistic.

Not that it doesn't happen. One of my cousins lives in a house with her husband AND her lover. However, that came about partially because her husband is a devout Catholic who will not divorce and also is a stubborn man who will not be run out of his house. But I bet she does not have his OK on the situation, even though she is honest and open about the matter. BTW, the most far left of my cousins, a LULAC member.

You should maybe reread what I said and digest it a bit more.

Quote: I do think there is something to be said for one's character in how they go about those things (as in, being honest and open with one's spouse, etc.) but it's nice that these consensual transgressions are not really killers of one's aspirations.

My point with that comment was that I can understand how someone could judge someone's character for those transgressions, especially if the partner did not disclose their affair (by the way, there is a large swath of possible situations between the rather ludicrous one you posited, and a rather more realistic one of confessing to your partner following an affair). But that it is not enough of a character flaw to totally disqualify someone from higher office. I basically do not think the simple act of lying with another person is a disqualifier, but that you can begin to build an opinion of one's character based on how they handled the transgression.

My marital status really has no reason to change that opinion, and I'm frankly getting a bit tired of how often you try and use my age. It's beginning to become a trope.


RE: Trump Administration - mrbig - 02-15-2018 04:51 PM

My opinion on politicians who cheat on their spouses has changed drastically over the years, perhaps than my opinion on any other issue. When I was in high school and college, I believed that a personal failing like that didn't affect the ability of the politician to do a good job.

But now that I'm married (and older), I believe the promises made to a spouse are amongst the strongest promises/vows one can make. My opinion is now that if a politician can't be trusted to keep the most important promise he/she might ever make, how can he/she possibly be trusted to keep their other promises and act in an ethical manner? I'm largely to the point that it should disqualify someone from public office (not that a law should be passed to that effect, just that I'm not sure I would vote for such a person). You can tweak fact patterns to make me feel slightly better about it (open marriages, individuals who are separated, when you think your husband is dead but really he was kidnapped and held by terrorists in Iraq for 7 years as they slowly try to convert him into becoming a terrorist, etc.).

If the spouse wants to forgive, that is fine with me. None of my business. But a breach of trust on something that important scares me. It isn't about the sex, it is about the breaking of promises and the lies. If you are willing to break that important of a promise to the person who should ostensibly be the most important person in your life, and then cover it up and lie about it....


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 02-15-2018 04:59 PM

(02-15-2018 04:51 PM)mrbig Wrote:  My opinion on politicians who cheat on their spouses has changed drastically over the years, perhaps than my opinion on any other issue. When I was in high school and college, I believed that a personal failing like that didn't affect the ability of the politician to do a good job.

But now that I'm married (and older), I believe the promises made to a spouse are amongst the strongest promises/vows one can make. My opinion is now that if a politician can't be trusted to keep the most important promise he/she might ever make, how can he/she possibly be trusted to keep their other promises and act in an ethical manner? I'm largely to the point that it should disqualify someone from public office (not that a law should be passed to that effect, just that I'm not sure I would vote for such a person). You can tweak fact patterns to make me feel slightly better about it (open marriages, individuals who are separated, when you think your husband is dead but really he was kidnapped and held by terrorists in Iraq for 7 years as they slowly try to convert him into becoming a terrorist, etc.).

If the spouse wants to forgive, that is fine with me. None of my business. But a breach of trust on something that important scares me. It isn't about the sex, it is about the breaking of promises and the lies. If you are willing to break that important of a promise to the person who should ostensibly be the most important person in your life, and then cover it up and lie about it....

Your comment is why I think it should color someone's opinion of the character of the person, but I still don't think that single act of cheating is disqualifying. But there can be other circumstances surrounding that act to cumulatively make someone unfit for office for a multitude of reasons - untrustworthiness being one of them.

But as Trump has shown, we may not actually care about a persons character anymore.


RE: Trump Administration - georgewebb - 02-15-2018 05:58 PM

(02-15-2018 04:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 04:51 PM)mrbig Wrote:  My opinion on politicians who cheat on their spouses has changed drastically over the years, perhaps than my opinion on any other issue. When I was in high school and college, I believed that a personal failing like that didn't affect the ability of the politician to do a good job.

But now that I'm married (and older), I believe the promises made to a spouse are amongst the strongest promises/vows one can make. My opinion is now that if a politician can't be trusted to keep the most important promise he/she might ever make, how can he/she possibly be trusted to keep their other promises and act in an ethical manner? I'm largely to the point that it should disqualify someone from public office (not that a law should be passed to that effect, just that I'm not sure I would vote for such a person). You can tweak fact patterns to make me feel slightly better about it (open marriages, individuals who are separated, when you think your husband is dead but really he was kidnapped and held by terrorists in Iraq for 7 years as they slowly try to convert him into becoming a terrorist, etc.).

If the spouse wants to forgive, that is fine with me. None of my business. But a breach of trust on something that important scares me. It isn't about the sex, it is about the breaking of promises and the lies. If you are willing to break that important of a promise to the person who should ostensibly be the most important person in your life, and then cover it up and lie about it....

Your comment is why I think it should color someone's opinion of the character of the person, but I still don't think that single act of cheating is disqualifying. But there can be other circumstances surrounding that act to cumulatively make someone unfit for office for a multitude of reasons - untrustworthiness being one of them.

But as Trump has shown, we may not actually care about a persons character anymore.

It started long before that. The chattering classes have been bragging about their lack of caring since at least 1992.


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 02-15-2018 07:35 PM

(02-15-2018 04:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 04:51 PM)mrbig Wrote:  My opinion on politicians who cheat on their spouses has changed drastically over the years, perhaps than my opinion on any other issue. When I was in high school and college, I believed that a personal failing like that didn't affect the ability of the politician to do a good job.
But now that I'm married (and older), I believe the promises made to a spouse are amongst the strongest promises/vows one can make. My opinion is now that if a politician can't be trusted to keep the most important promise he/she might ever make, how can he/she possibly be trusted to keep their other promises and act in an ethical manner? I'm largely to the point that it should disqualify someone from public office (not that a law should be passed to that effect, just that I'm not sure I would vote for such a person). You can tweak fact patterns to make me feel slightly better about it (open marriages, individuals who are separated, when you think your husband is dead but really he was kidnapped and held by terrorists in Iraq for 7 years as they slowly try to convert him into becoming a terrorist, etc.).
If the spouse wants to forgive, that is fine with me. None of my business. But a breach of trust on something that important scares me. It isn't about the sex, it is about the breaking of promises and the lies. If you are willing to break that important of a promise to the person who should ostensibly be the most important person in your life, and then cover it up and lie about it....
Your comment is why I think it should color someone's opinion of the character of the person, but I still don't think that single act of cheating is disqualifying. But there can be other circumstances surrounding that act to cumulatively make someone unfit for office for a multitude of reasons - untrustworthiness being one of them.
But as Trump has shown, we may not actually care about a persons character anymore.

I think Ted "Blonde in the Pond" Kennedy and Bill Clinton proved it long before Trump.