whats the over/under on affairs

[Belsnickel]

(02-16-2018, 06:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, that ship has sailed hasn't it.

---
@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.

When there's actual hypocrisy that's something sure worth mentioning, but one couldn't say that about Trump directly. One knew he was quite lewd beforehand.

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.

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?