whats the over/under on affairs

[Dill]

(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.
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.

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!