whats the over/under on affairs - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: whats the over/under on affairs (/Thread-whats-the-over-under-on-affairs) Pages:
1
2
|
RE: whats the over/under on affairs - hollodero - 02-16-2018 (02-16-2018, 06:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What you're missing is that the United States tends towards wanting moral authorities for their leaders. Divorce among the elite is still, for the most part, seen as a failing. Trump is only the second president to have been divorced and even though we know plenty about extramarital dalliances for others it is something that the American public has typically been rather unhappy about. I think Clinton's escapades may have changed that, some. This is just the first time that American prudishness has been tested in this way since then because of the strong marriages of Bush 43 and Obama. Hm OK. I guess from what I see (which of course is not nearly the whole picture, only small slices) this ship has also sailed. It was already tough for Democrats to point at Republicans after Clinton, it's even tougher for Republicans now after Trump to point at Democrats, and I figure these are the more likely ones to point fingers to begin with, but as I said, I'd say that has to be pretty much done for good. Times sure were different in the past, but times change, will change further and marriages will get opener and opener, whether that's disclosed or not and whether people approve of that or not. There's nothing stopping that, I believe. (02-16-2018, 06:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I will say this, though, about infidelity claims among elected officials. If it is done behind the back of the spouse, without their knowledge and permission, then I do see it as problematic. It shows that there is a lack of loyalty in place. I don't have a problem if someone comes out and says they have an open relationship or what have you, but if your marital institution is not agreed upon in that way, then you are being disloyal to your partner. If you are willing to be disloyal to your partner, why should we believe you would be loyal to the people you have been elected to serve? I get this reasons why one would care personally,. Then again, I have no idea what Trump and his spouse agreed upon in private, maybe fidelity was never a part of the marriage deal to begin with. Since I'm almost always in that position of not knowing I decided not to care too much - fueled by my belief that indeed private life and public life are two very different things and what drives a person in private to things like infidelity doesn't necessarily have an impact on professional/jobwise conduct. I'd go as far as to say it shouldn't count for much either, but sure that's just me. I get why one might have a different viewpoint on that. Things are different when politicians drag out their wifes in public to emphasize an apology attempt or things like these. Thinking of it, I might agree (although that's tricky in its own way) that an open marriage arrangement should be disclosed, so the spouse doesn't appear humiliated. Melania pretty much looks humiliated at this point and that's not a good thing and it's on grabby Donald. With Trump it's difficult for me because I loathe that man so deeply on so many levels that I really can't tell how much this particular instance adds to that. His way of handling his spouse and women in general doesn't appear noble for sure, but on this I agree with those that say well people knew that about him from the beginning and he was elected anyways. So how much do Americans really care about moral authority and all that? RE: whats the over/under on affairs - ballsofsteel - 02-16-2018 Drumph's base, red necks and evangelicals don't care. He admitted on air that he is a sexual predator and is proud of it. RE: whats the over/under on affairs - Griever - 02-19-2018 (02-16-2018, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's a population that cares what consenting adults do in their bedrooms. and that would be republicans, for some reason RE: whats the over/under on affairs - GMDino - 03-07-2018 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/06/porn-star-stormy-daniels-files-lawsuit-against-trump-alleging-hush-agreement-invalid/401768002/ Quote:Porn star Stormy Daniels files lawsuit against Trump, alleging 'hush' agreement invalid RE: whats the over/under on affairs - Dill - 03-07-2018 (02-16-2018, 06:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, that ship has sailed hasn't it.Boy howdy. (02-16-2018, 06:10 PM)holloder0 Wrote: @topic I feel no one should care about any number of affairs as long as they don't impact the performance as a politician in any way. Which wasn't the case for Clinton (there were real impacts in efforts to deflect from Lewinsky, the world could see that), and which might not be the case for Trump if hush money was paid with campaign means. Hey, we aren't the French. In most situations I too don't care what people do in their personal life if it isn't illegal and abusive. But the president is considered (or used to be) a role model children should respect, someone supposed to exercise good judgment and exhibit integrity. (Recall he flap over Trump's speech to the Boy Scouts?) So a horn dog for president is a serious problem. It means he takes unnecessary risks, is disloyal to his life partner, can't judge possible repercussions of his actions very well. And finally, the private life of public officials, most especially the president, is a national security concern. Whatabout Clinton? Your note on the dysfunction of his presidency buttresses my case. And think of the grief he brought on Hillary, Chelsea, and his party. Trump couldn't learn from another's mistake? Voters could not see the risk of a repeat? LOL what would destroy any other president is now so trivial, given the many more serious consequences of the Trump presidency. But even with the double standard for Trump, people should be able to see how bad personal behavior harms the office and "brand" America. RE: whats the over/under on affairs - hollodero - 03-07-2018 (03-07-2018, 07:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Hey, we aren't the French. Yeah ok. Trump doesn't count to counter me. I wondered if expecting morals in form of strict monogamy from a president takes it too far and that there's a case to be made that he should not be seen as that flawless role model to begin with. I added a thousand words to that. I mean, it's more of a thought than a stance. I get what you're saying, these are fair points. By that I did in no way mean that it's no one's business when a president whores around without filter, spews lewd comments, walks into girls' locker rooms, harasses multiple women and brags about grabbing them them by the :andy:. I'd be willing to accept personal life choices, doesn't mean I'm willing to accept all that in a president. Of course not. As for Clinton, of course he should not get a from an intern in the oval office. And all his affairs were really a bit much. With the dysfunction following, that I see of course as his fault first and foremost, but partly also caused by a public being overly interested in every shrewd little detail, and a bit less attention would have caused a little less dysfunction. But that doesn't mean that I think Clinton's deeds were ok for a president. They weren't for me. RE: whats the over/under on affairs - Dill - 03-07-2018 (03-07-2018, 07:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah ok. Trump doesn't count to counter me. I wondered if expecting morals in form of strict monogamy from a president takes it too far and that there's a case to be made that he should not be seen as that flawless role model to begin with. I added a thousand words to that. I mean, it's more of a thought than a stance. I get what you're saying, these are fair points. Sure, I agree with you on that. President attempts one discreet affair, reconciles with wife. End of story--if he is competent at his job. The dysfunction following Clinton's adventure was also a decision on the part of the press and the other party to break unspoken bounds regarding the president's private life in an attempt to bring him down. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy--all got a pass on that. I salute your creativity with emoticons, by the way. Adds an extra-expressive dimension to your writing! RE: whats the over/under on affairs - hollodero - 03-07-2018 (03-07-2018, 09:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure, I agree with you on that. President attempts one discreet affair, reconciles with wife. End of story--if he is competent at his job. Yeah and I wouldn't even mind if it's two or three. I couldn't judge because what do I know about the agreement these guys have, and when I like the job performance, so be it. Sure enough, when it's getting to double digits, that I probably would consider too much. Or as I said when they start dragging out the wife in shallow displays of public remorse, or when it turns Clintonesque. (03-07-2018, 09:14 PM)Dill Wrote: The dysfunction following Clinton's adventure was also a decision on the part of the press and the other party to break unspoken bounds regarding the president's private life in an attempt to bring him down. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy--all got a pass on that. Yeah, all that. I sure caught that only from across the ocean in pre-internet times, but this was quite followed even here, and the Clinton-Starr-sensationalism trinity was a top example for American weirdness. Which maybe isn't entirely fair, for close to none of European politicians are ever as exposed as an US president is. We Austrians usually know little about our politician's private life, and except for some post-menopausal women's magazines our leader's spouses usually aren't featured much. And that's good. (03-07-2018, 09:14 PM)Dill Wrote: I salute your creativity with emoticons, by the way. Adds an extra-expressive dimension to your writing! I shouldn't have used that Dalton emoticon the way I did though. I feel bad about that. RE: whats the over/under on affairs - Dill - 03-07-2018 (03-07-2018, 10:26 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, all that. I sure caught that only from across the ocean in pre-internet times, but this was quite followed even here, and the Clinton-Starr-sensationalism trinity was a top example for American weirdness. Which maybe isn't entirely fair, for close to none of European politicians are ever as exposed as an US president is. We Austrians usually know little about our politician's private life, and except for some post-menopausal women's magazines our leader's spouses usually aren't featured much. And that's good. It was embarrassing, truly. I had just come back from Europe and was used to watching our antics from "across the pond" and thinking "How does this look?" What bothered me in part was that Starr et al. never seemed to consider how they might appear, rabidly going after C. and dragging sordid, soggy details into the public light. The effect of Whitewatergate and Travelgate and file gate and Paula Jones and Vince Foster along with this was to make all appear orchestrated, like a "vast right wing conspiracy" focused on bringing down one powerful, liberal family. Evangelicals were especially harsh, insisting Clinton's misdeeds characterized the Dem's rotten core, recalling the country to principled leadership. So here we are 20 years later and the competent and focused Hillary is still far worse than Trump. RE: whats the over/under on affairs - GMDino - 03-09-2018 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/09/trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-says-he-paid-stormy-daniels-his-home-equity-line/412335002/ Quote:Trump lawyer Michael Cohen says he paid Stormy Daniels with his home-equity line RE: whats the over/under on affairs - GMDino - 03-15-2018 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-15/trump-organization-lawyer-sought-to-enforce-hush-agreement Quote:Trump Firm’s Lawyer Tried to Stop Stormy Daniels From Talking For emphasis: Quote:“Bottom line -- Trump’s claims that he didn’t know of the payment and agreement are patently false," Avenatti said in a statement. "He has his own internal general counsel enforcing the agreement!" |