'You can't be a good President if you cheat on your spouse!' WHAT?!

[WednesdayAddams]

One of the things that has always caused me to scratch my head in befuddlement at the Grand Old Party is the assertion that Fenris made earlier today in this thread, namely:

Originally Posted by Fenris

*Also the fact that he apparently consistently cheated on his wife. I don't care if it's Clinton, Newt, Weiner, Packwood, Edwards or Cain, if you can't be trusted to keep the most basic, easy vow** "Honey, I promise not to put my dick in another woman's vagina", how can you trust them with selling cars, let alone running the country?

**Yeah, yeah, any of them might have an open marriage. If Ms. Edwards or Ms Cain comes out and says "We're polyamorous. Want to make something of it?", fine with me. But no-one ever has.

I'm sorry, how's that again? You're saying, then, that infidelity automatically precludes ability to effectively govern, because it speaks to one's character of not being able to keep a promise*.

Yeah, I don't see it. It's a black and white interpretation of a complex issue that has nothing whatever to do with one's ability. Far worse, IMO, is the crippling effects this puritanical stance is having on the party. Mitt Romney is the best you can put forward? Really? That's just sad. What's more important, the state of the nation's economy, or whether the President gets some strange every so often? And if it's the latter...I think your priorities are a bit skewed. We need wonks right now. I don't care that Michelle Bachmann took a pledge that she's faithful to her husband. I could give a fuck less that Newt Gingrich is on wife #4. It simply does. Not. Matter. Moreover, until the base understands that, the Republicans are going to be saddled with mediocre candidates who can only speak to the 'social issues.' When did that happen?

Conservatives are doing themselves a disservice by focusing on sex. Right now they need candidates who can speak seriously to the issues and show they're capable of making sound decisions based on proven policy.

I'm interested in hearing exactly what, beyond 'it speaks to character!' gives us the right to delve into a couple's marriage. Because quite honestly, there are too many examples of those able to compartmentalize and govern well to say that it's accurate.


*Please note: I am talking about consensual sex between two (or whatever) parties. Sexual harrassment and/or rape is a completely different animal, and should be prosecuted.

[KidVermicious]

For me, infidelity = dishonesty. If a person can't be honest and forthright with the person they've vowed to spend the rest of their life with, how can I expect them to treat me?

I start from the presumption that politicians are dishonest, so it ain't like being a cheater is a deal breaker for me. But yeah, most other things being equal, I'd certainly prefer a presidential candidate that wasn't a philanderer, and that's from a logical standpoint, not a moral one.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Conservatives are doing themselves a disservice by focusing on sex. Right now they need candidates who can speak seriously to the issues and show they're capable of making sound decisions based on proven policy.

But it's the only topic that's guaranteed to generate interest among their constituents as well as earn them religious street cred. Once they move away from that holier-than-thou fervor they lose their base.

[u wan buy dvd?]

There are very few rationally coherent links between the president's job and the qualifications people favor. I don't even think that having a dishonest personality precludes him from doing a good job.

[Solfy]

I agree with Kid - character does matter. I'm not saying it's a dealbreaker, but anyone who will lie to their spouse for personal gain has established their reputation as a less-than-honest person. I don't think their sexual escapades have anything to do with their ability to govern, but it does speak to their willingness to put themselves first. In this day and age of instant and widely disseminated information, it also reflects poorly on their ability to gauge risk as well. Honest or not, I want a person who is going to make sound judgements in the best interest of the country.

A person with an established personal history of taking large risks for personal gain at the expense of a spouse whose interests they should be considering is less likely in my mind to make good decisions. Not incapable, just less likely.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

One of the things that has always caused me to scratch my head in befuddlement at the Grand Old Party is the assertion that Fenris made earlier today in this thread, namely:

I'm sorry, how's that again? You're saying, then, that infidelity automatically precludes ability to effectively govern, because it speaks to one's character of not being able to keep a promise*.

No--that's not what I said.

I said "If you can't trust them to keep their promises in one case, how can you trust them in other ways?" It's really not that hard of a promise to keep.

Mitt Romney is the best you can put forward? Really? That's just sad. What's more important, the state of the nation's economy, or whether the President gets some strange every so often? And if it's the latter...I think your priorities are a bit skewed. We need wonks right now. I don't care that Michelle Bachmann took a pledge that she's faithful to her husband. I could give a fuck less that Newt Gingrich is on wife #4. It simply does. Not. Matter. Moreover, until the base understands that, the Republicans are going to be saddled with mediocre candidates who can only speak to the 'social issues.' When did that happen?

Don't look at me. So far, the only thing Romney has going for him is that he's not Obama and will likely appoint judges I prefer. He's certainly not on my short-list.

I'm interested in hearing exactly what, beyond 'it speaks to character!' gives us the right to delve into a couple's marriage. Because quite honestly, there are too many examples of those able to compartmentalize and govern well to say that it's accurate.

It's a matter of trust. I also said I wouldn't buy a car from someone I knew was cheating on his spouse. Or who I knew cheated at cards for that matter. You can't compartmentalize basic honestly.

*Please note: I am talking about consensual sex between two (or whatever) parties. Sexual harrassment and/or rape is a completely different animal, and should be prosecuted.

You're ignoring that the spouses of the cheaters did NOT consent. And the cheaters are putting the cheatee's health, reputation and finances at risk by boinking without the cheatee's consent. The so-called "consentual" cheating is a blind to obscure the fact that harm IS being done at least potentially to the cheatees.

Do you think that Elizabeth Edwards or Jackie(?) Gingrich agreed to have their husbands boinking trophy-bimbos and bringing home god-knows-what when they were having chemo? If not, then it's not consensual for all parties, is it?

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by KidVermicious

For me, infidelity = dishonesty. If a person can't be honest and forthright with the person they've vowed to spend the rest of their life with, how can I expect them to treat me?

I start from the presumption that politicians are dishonest, so it ain't like being a cheater is a deal breaker for me. But yeah, most other things being equal, I'd certainly prefer a presidential candidate that wasn't a philanderer, and that's from a logical standpoint, not a moral one.

I'm not sure how that's a logical standpoint, not a moral one. If you're aware politicians are dishonest, then the connection you're making is that if someone cheats on his wife, you personally are going to like them less. That's moral.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by Fenris

You're ignoring that the spouses of the cheaters did NOT consent. And the cheaters are putting the cheatees health, reputation and finances at risk by boinking without the cheatee's consent. The so-called "consentual" cheating is a blind to obscure the fact that harm IS being done at least potentially to the cheatees.

Do you think that Elizabeth Edwards or Jackie(?) Gingrich agreed to have their husbands boinking trophy-bimbos and bringing home god-knows-what when they were having chemo? If not, then it's not consensual for all parties, is it?

I'm ignoring no such thing. I'm saying it's none of my damn business, and you can't really say they didn't know because YOU don't know. That's always the problem with barging into other peoples' marriages. Bad enough they're public figures, we get to decide whether or not the other party should be outraged, whether or not they knew, what should have happened after they found out, etc. It really isn't something I care to think about. I mean, there are SO many reasons to not vote for Hermy Cain beyond whether or not he really had a 13 year affair or simply boinked her once.

[hatesfreedom]

Basically if you watch the Honey Badger video it explains all this politics issue for you in a simple manner in which you may be able to understand.

But the reason we can delve into peoples personnel lives and rip them apart is because -> Politics

[KidVermicious]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

I'm not sure how that's a logical standpoint, not a moral one. If you're aware politicians are dishonest, then the connection you're making is that if someone cheats on his wife, you personally are going to like them less. That's moral.

One of us is missing something here, because I'm not sure what part of my position you're objecting to, or why you think my opinion is motivated by morality.

Unless it's that you're willing to concede that dishonesty is almost always wrong, in which case I don't understand why you're objecting to folks not wanting a philandering president in the first place? That's a horrible sentence, I'm sorry.

As regards "barging into marriages", sorry but I feel that's my right when a person steps up and offers themselves as a candidate. I have the luxury of ignoring what a neighbor or friend does in or out of their marriage, because that doesn't affect me. Once a person offers to start making decisions that directly affect the well-being of myself and my family, I'm forced to have an opinion about their extra-marital activities in order to make a good choice. It happened just once, a case of momentary bad judgement, and it's over? Ok, I can ignore that, everybody makes mistakes, even if I hopefully never make that particular one. But a serial cheater, especially a politician serial cheater, indicates a person that is willing to abuse their position to get their rocks off, a person that is willing to boldy and repeatedly lie to people that theoretically love him in order to do it. Well, ok, it's not my life and I don't walk in those shoes. But if they'll lie to their spouse for personal gain, they'll damned sure lie to me for personal gain, and that's a mark against them. I think it's perfectly logical to have a preference against a candidate that has demonstrated a chronic aptitude for dishonesty in the pursuit of personal gain. YMMV.

Holy crap, that got long, sorry. Maybe the difference is that you're willing to trust what goes on behind closed doors. Sort of a "he'll have to lie part of the time as President, so who cares if he did it as a husband?" sort of thing? The difference to me is why he lies. He can lie to France for the good of the US (mostly) all he wants, but I'd prefer a candidate that won't lie to the US for the good of himself.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

I'm ignoring no such thing. I'm saying it's none of my damn business, and you can't really say they didn't know because YOU don't know. That's always the problem with barging into other peoples' marriages. Bad enough they're public figures, we get to decide whether or not the other party should be outraged, whether or not they knew, what should have happened after they found out, etc. It really isn't something I care to think about. I mean, there are SO many reasons to not vote for Hermy Cain beyond whether or not he really had a 13 year affair or simply boinked her once.

Fine, so why is it your business if a candidate drove drunk? Or plagiarized?

I don't accept that morals have nothing to do with a candidate. If they won't keep a basic promise to their spouse, why would I have any hope of them appointing the sort of judicial candidate they said they would. Or passing a law they promised.

[Xploder]

Originally Posted by Solfy

I agree with Kid - character does matter. I'm not saying it's a dealbreaker, but anyone who will lie to their spouse for personal gain has established their reputation as a less-than-honest person. I don't think their sexual escapades have anything to do with their ability to govern, but it does speak to their willingness to put themselves first. In this day and age of instant and widely disseminated information, it also reflects poorly on their ability to gauge risk as well. Honest or not, I want a person who is going to make sound judgements in the best interest of the country.

A person with an established personal history of taking large risks for personal gain at the expense of a spouse whose interests they should be considering is less likely in my mind to make good decisions. Not incapable, just less likely.

I disagree with you here for the simple fact that the two things, marriage and running the country, are nowhere near the same in significance. Sometimes, what I think this country really needs is a real rat bastard who isn't afraid to get out there and really tell the truth about the way things are such as which politico is getting funds from what special interest group or whatever. As far as I'm concerned, the President's sex life has absolutely nothing to do with running the country. Look at JFK, who pretty much fucked anything that would stand still long enough. I don't see where it affected his ability to run the country at all.

[Solfy]

The problem with that idea is that no real rat bastard who tells things like it is will ever make it to the presidency. Brutally honest people piss too many people off. You have to look out for #1 to rise to the level of candidate in the first place; it's no wonder we have a host of politicians who tend to only look out for #1.

[Xploder]

Originally Posted by Fenris

I don't accept that morals have nothing to do with a candidate. If they won't keep a basic promise to their spouse, why would I have any hope of them appointing the sort of judicial candidate they said they would. Or passing a law they promised.

Turn that around the other way and ask this. Why would you think that they wouldn't pass a law they promised or appoint a judge they said they would. The fact that they had an affair is beside the point because that affair, really, has no effect on you whatsoever. Unless of course, it's your spouse that had the affair, otherwise, I still don't see it.

I personally know a lot of very public lawyers and businesspeople that I've done business with over the years and I'd have to say that around 75% have had affairs while their spouses knew about it. Did it make them less in their line of business? Not that I can tell as their volume of business always went up regardless of the circumstances.

What you're saying is that because you don't believe that a person should have an affair then a presidential candidate should never either. Because of your beliefs. That's the bottom line and dancing around the issue of future truthfulness is ridiculous.

[Xploder]

Originally Posted by Solfy

The problem with that idea is that no real rat bastard who tells things like it is will ever make it to the presidency. Brutally honest people piss too many people off. You have to look out for #1 to rise to the level of candidate in the first place; it's no wonder we have a host of politicians who tend to only look out for #1.

Oh I agree with you 100%! Maybe we'll get reeeeeeeally lucky and some future President will wake up one morning, have an epiphany, and decide to actually be an honest politician. Doubtful I know as I don't know of any politico who doesn't have a skeleton or two in the closet that they don't want brought out in public.

[KidVermicious]

Originally Posted by Xploder

I disagree with you here for the simple fact that the two things, marriage and running the country, are nowhere near the same in significance. Sometimes, what I think this country really needs is a real rat bastard who isn't afraid to get out there and really tell the truth about the way things are such as which politico is getting funds from what special interest group or whatever. As far as I'm concerned, the President's sex life has absolutely nothing to do with running the country. Look at JFK, who pretty much fucked anything that would stand still long enough. I don't see where it affected his ability to run the country at all.

You are making the mistake of assuming that we're conflating his sex life with his propensity for honesty. I don't give a rats ass about how many partners of what persuasion he's had or who he's currently boning as long as he's not lying about it. The lying is the indicator of a possibly-less-qualified candidate, not the fucking.

And why is it that JFK gets brought up every time this subject does? He wasn't all that as a president, and one contrary example doesn't refute the argument even if he was Christ on a cracker.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Xploder

What you're saying is that because you don't believe that a person should have an affair then a presidential candidate should never either. Because of your beliefs.

Of course I am. We all of us, every one, vote for people based on our beliefs.

That's the bottom line and dancing around the issue of future truthfulness is ridiculous.

Nope. I firmly believe that cheating on your spouse is relevant to future truthiness. I'm not tap-dancing around it, I'm saying it straight out.

[KidVermicious]

Originally Posted by Xploder

What you're saying is that because you don't believe that a person should have an affair then a presidential candidate should never either. Because of your beliefs. That's the bottom line and dancing around the issue of future truthfulness is ridiculous.

Ok, now what you're saying is that you believe there's nothing wrong with cheating on your spouse? Because that's what I'm taking from your counter-argument. I don't really believe that you believe that, but if you don't, then you're not making any sense.

[Solfy]

I think the logic is that having an affair has no bearing on one's ability to govern.
If you replace "govern" with "change my car's oil," I'd agree with it. There are jobs that are not connected in any way with a person's integrity (other than trusting them not to go psycho and beat the shit out of my car's undercarriage with a pipe wrench instead of changing the oil). Governing is not one of them.
Sexual practice has nothing to do with integrity. Illicit affairs do.

[Xploder]

Originally Posted by KidVermicious

You are making the mistake of assuming that we're conflating his sex life with his propensity for honesty. I don't give a rats ass about how many partners of what persuasion he's had or who he's currently boning as long as he's not lying about it. The lying is the indicator of a possibly-less-qualified candidate, not the fucking.

And why is it that JFK gets brought up every time this subject does? He wasn't all that as a president, and one contrary example doesn't refute the argument even if he was Christ on a cracker.

Good point. I guess I hadn't thought of it since nobody has explicitly said infidelity=dishonesty. Sorry, I just don't see it that way so I guess we can agree to disagree.

I brought up JFK for the same reason everyone else does. When you think of a politician that liked to fuck everything he could, JFK is the first thing to come to mind. Couple that with the fact that he really was a pretty good president despite it sort of agrees with what I was saying. The fact that he screwed around on his wife didn't take anything away from how he ran his presidency at all that I can see.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Solfy

Illicit affairs do.

Exactly. My issue is lying to one's spouse, not boinking someone else. You wanna have a polyamorous relationship, be my guest.

You regularly lying to the person who, presumably is the closest person in the world to you? Bad, bad sign. If you can't keep a basic promise to your spouse, why should I, a stranger, trust you to keep a promise to me?

[Xploder]

Originally Posted by KidVermicious

Ok, now what you're saying is that you believe there's nothing wrong with cheating on your spouse? Because that's what I'm taking from your counter-argument. I don't really believe that you believe that, but if you don't, then you're not making any sense.

I said that nowhere at all! I said that the fact that he cheated on his wife doesn't preclude him from being a good president. If you can find somewhere that I say that I believe cheating on your spouse is okay, I'll be glad to agree with anything you say. Since you won't find that statement anywhere I'm not overly worried.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by Xploder

I brought up JFK for the same reason everyone else does. When you think of a politician that liked to fuck everything he could, JFK is the first thing to come to mind. Couple that with the fact that he really was a pretty good president despite it sort of agrees with what I was saying. The fact that he screwed around on his wife didn't take anything away from how he ran his presidency at all that I can see.

Slight :hijack: ahead:

I read something interesting a while back: If GWB had died a year after 9/11 (presumably from pretzel asphyxiation) we may be comparing his legacy to JFK's, based on the latter's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. And conversely, had JFK lived out his full term, he may be blamed for the whole Vietnam mess.

[Xploder]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Exactly. My issue is lying to one's spouse, not boinking someone else. You wanna have a polyamorous relationship, be my guest.

You regularly lying to the person who, presumably is the closest person in the world to you? Bad, bad sign. If you can't keep a basic promise to your spouse, why should I, a stranger, trust you to keep a promise to me?

Fine then. Show me how you know that his spouse didn't know about it. You can't. You're just saying that since you think someone that has an affair obviously would NEVER let his wife know then this guy MUST be the same. It's not the same because you don't actually know now do you? A good friend of mine is an extremely successful lawyer and businessman. His wife has known all along that he has a Mistress and doesn't care because he's still there for her whenever she needs him. Does the general public know this? Nope. Why do I? Because he's a damn good friend and I've known his Mistress all my life. He's more honest than any other lawyer I've ever known in my life. But if, say, YOU knew he had an affair and didn't know that his wife knew all about it, you'd be the first to question his honesty?

[Xploder]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

Slight :hijack: ahead:

I read something interesting a while back: If GWB had died a year after 9/11 (presumably from pretzel asphyxiation) we may be comparing his legacy to JFK's, based on the latter's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. And conversely, had JFK lived out his full term, he may be blamed for the whole Vietnam mess.

I'd be inclined to believe that. Except for the fact that JFK didn't start the Vietnam mess. We had already been there since the mid 50's. Of course, people wouldn't see it that way since the war would have been escalating under HIS presidency so you're right.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Of course I am. We all of us, every one, vote for people based on our beliefs.

Hopefully you mean your belief that the candidate is capable and falls in line politically with what you believe to be in the best interest of the country as a whole.

Nope. I firmly believe that cheating on your spouse is relevant to future truthiness. I'm not tap-dancing around it, I'm saying it straight out.

Then you're doing it wrong.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by KidVermicious

You are making the mistake of assuming that we're conflating his sex life with his propensity for honesty. I don't give a rats ass about how many partners of what persuasion he's had or who he's currently boning as long as he's not lying about it. The lying is the indicator of a possibly-less-qualified candidate, not the fucking.

And why is it that JFK gets brought up every time this subject does? He wasn't all that as a president, and one contrary example doesn't refute the argument even if he was Christ on a cracker.

Make up your mind. Either you accept that politicians lie, or lying is simply unacceptable.

(How about Louis XIV? Thomas Jefferson? George Washington? Henry VIII, FFS?)

[Wolf Larsen]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Exactly. My issue is lying to one's spouse, not boinking someone else. You wanna have a polyamorous relationship, be my guest.

You regularly lying to the person who, presumably is the closest person in the world to you? Bad, bad sign. If you can't keep a basic promise to your spouse, why should I, a stranger, trust you to keep a promise to me?

+1

As a group, democratic politicians cheat and republican politicians do crony deals. Both are evil.

[Solfy]

Given a choice between two equivalent candidates (ignoring for the moment that there is no such thing) wherein one of them has, as far as we know, been faithful to his/her spouse and another who has not, and I'm going to vote for the faithful spouse.

Given two candidates, one of whom I feel has policies that would be the downfall of the USA as we know it but who has been faithful to their spouse, and another who has had three sequential mistresses over the past 12 years but whose platforms I support wholeheartedly (hey! another imaginary creature!), I'd vote for the philanderer.

[WednesdayAddams]

Quick show of hands: how many people have voted for a politician that never lied?

[Xploder]

Okay. For all of you that think that infidelity is equal to untruthfulness, suppose we elect a president who si above reproach. He meets every single one of your criteria as a great person and is the perfect person to assume the presidency. He serves two exemplary terms and every decision he makes makes you wet your pant in appreciation. Then after he does so, it comes out that he had an affair at some point in the past that his wife never knew about. Did the fact that he had an affair make any difference whatsoever in your perception of him AT THE TIME HE MADE HIS DECISIONS than if you had never known about it at all?

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by Solfy

Given a choice between two equivalent candidates (ignoring for the moment that there is no such thing) wherein one of them has, as far as we know, been faithful to his/her spouse and another who has not, and I'm going to vote for the faithful spouse.

Given two candidates, one of whom I feel has policies that would be the downfall of the USA as we know it but who has been faithful to their spouse, and another who has had three sequential mistresses over the past 12 years but whose platforms I support wholeheartedly (hey! another imaginary creature!), I'd vote for the philanderer.

That I can understand. It's a reasoned position.

[Xploder]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Quick show of hands: how many people have voted for a politician that never lied?

snort

[Xploder]

Originally Posted by Solfy

Given a choice between two equivalent candidates (ignoring for the moment that there is no such thing) wherein one of them has, as far as we know, been faithful to his/her spouse and another who has not, and I'm going to vote for the faithful spouse.

Given two candidates, one of whom I feel has policies that would be the downfall of the USA as we know it but who has been faithful to their spouse, and another who has had three sequential mistresses over the past 12 years but whose platforms I support wholeheartedly (hey! another imaginary creature!), I'd vote for the philanderer.

That makes sense. That's how I imagine most voters vote.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

That I can understand. It's a reasoned position.

Then what's the problem? It's essentially what I said in the other thread:

Originally Posted by Fenris

That's a fair point of view...but to me, it's a baseline. It's not the only baseline, it's not an absolute disqualifier for me, but it's a huge strike against them. It really isn't that hard of a promise to keep.

[Xploder]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Then what's the problem? It's essentially what I said in the other thread:

I think where she says this:

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

I'm sorry, how's that again? You're saying, then, that infidelity automatically precludes ability to effectively govern, because it speaks to one's character of not being able to keep a promise

may be the disconnect. I could, of course, be wrong. But also, where you say this:

Originally Posted by Fenris

Nope. I firmly believe that cheating on your spouse is relevant to future truthiness. I'm not tap-dancing around it, I'm saying it straight out.

you're saying that if a guy had an affair and his wife didn't know about it, then you'd never trust him about anything else.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

I'm sorry, how's that again? You're saying, then, that infidelity automatically precludes ability to effectively govern, because it speaks to one's character of not being able to keep a promise.

Yeah, I don't see it. It's a black and white interpretation of a complex issue that has nothing whatever to do with one's ability. Far worse, IMO, is the crippling effects this puritanical stance is having on the party.

I don't disagree with you in general principle or most points, but I don't think it can be said in this insistence that marital fidelity is the sole thing crippling the GOP at present. Frankly, I'd like to see the GOP on life-support with no health insurance, but I'm a tad testy today.

Infidelity is certainly a serious character flaw, but like most things basic to human nature, it only seems to be black and white. Was Jimmy Carter unfaithful for "lusting in his heart"? Some say yes, some that he was only admitting to common "male" urges (make that human urges, but I bet it was referenced as male at the time). Is it better to maintain the facade of Happy Couple while living out a silent hell, all for the sake of "integrity"? How is living a lie anymore moral than not?

Which is NOT to say I support extramarital affairs by any means. Merely that most relationships are messy and experience some fluidity at their boundaries (ie, their boundaries are reshapen over time in many ways, not just sexually), so perhaps that affair was a symptom of a sick marriage--one that could be healed or one that could not.

It's not all cut and dried; it's never as simple as the media cares to portray it; dishonesty in one arena does not equate to dishonesty in all. If that were the case, every time you've driven even 1 mile over the speed limit means you're a criminal.

IOW, as Wednesday has said, you can't apply blanket reasoning to human behavior. It sure would be easier if you could.

And all that said, it's a different story all together once you've gotten on a high horse and painted others with a scarlet A ala Gringich and Clinton. He cannot claim the moral high ground (which won't stop him or his supporters) given the news about his er, "choices". Ditto Herman Cain and I'll bet Mrs C is regretting going public with her husband's defense.

That's what sticks most in my craw re the GOP. The public hounding and castigation, usually followed in fairly short order by the revelation that guess what? Je accuse can't keep his pants zipped either.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Then what's the problem? It's essentially what I said in the other thread

Because you didn't say a word about policy, just cheating = dishonest = disqualified.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Xploder

I think where she says this:
may be the disconnect. I could, of course, be wrong. But also, where you say this:

you're saying that if a guy had an affair and his wife didn't know about it, then you'd never trust him about anything else.

"relevant" to future truthiness. If I have to choose between two car dealers, one who cheated and one who didn't, all other things being equal, cheating on one's spouse is relevant. It's not the only factor, it's not even the determining factor. But it weighs into my decision and fairly heavily.

The other issue is this: if the politician is so stupid and arrogant as to try to get away with it, they're too dumb to be leader of the free world.* Gary Hart daring the press to follow him and then making a bee-line for his bimbo? Stupid and arrogant. John Edwards boinking his bimbo in a hotel where a national journalist convention was being held at the time? Stupid and arrogant.


*Yes, non-cheating politicians can be dumb too.

[Xploder]

Sorry, I still don't see how it's relevant at all. What happens in his private life should be just that: private. It makes no difference to me one way or the other if he's fucking one-legged, bi-sexual dwarves with a side of pony on the side. If he can do his job properly, i.e., running the country without getting us into a couple of pointless wars or letting the economy meltdown and then rewarding the people responsible, then his sexual proclivities don't matter one way or the other.

[Wolf]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Exactly. My issue is lying to one's spouse, not boinking someone else. You wanna have a polyamorous relationship, be my guest.

You regularly lying to the person who, presumably is the closest person in the world to you? Bad, bad sign. If you can't keep a basic promise to your spouse, why should I, a stranger, trust you to keep a promise to me?

You are assuming that spouses are close. I would like to see a cite for this. I don't buy it.

It would be ideal if spouses were close with each other. In a Utopian society, spouses would be close with each other (i.e. never lying, never cheating, etc.). That's not reality. Cheating happens. Divorces happen. Some relationships work. Other relationships do not work.

Originally Posted by Xploder

Sorry, I still don't see how it's relevant at all. What happens in his private life should be just that: private. It makes no difference to me one way or the other if he's fucking one-legged, bi-sexual dwarves with a side of pony on the side. If he can do his job properly, i.e., running the country without getting us into a couple of pointless wars or letting the economy meltdown and then rewarding the people responsible, then his sexual proclivities don't matter one way or the other.

Correct. Private lives should be kept private.

[Solfy]

Originally Posted by Wolf

You are assuming that spouses are close. I would like to see a cite for this. I don't buy it.

Does it matter? If you're not close and you want to stick it in someone else (or have someone else stick it in you), divorce the spouse first. Problem solved.

On private lives: What if the candidate was an alcoholic? It's not illegal. It's private. Would you vote for an actively drinking alcoholic? What about a dry one?

[eleanorigby]

Are you taking the piss, Fenris? Because if you're serious, I think you mean truthfulness, NOT truthiness. If you mean truthiness my irony meter just exploded.

[WednesdayAddams]

Note to el: I am going to respond to you, but as this is from my phone, and it's a way TLDR response, it will be after work. Am not ignoring you.

Edit: also, holy hell this thread is moving too fast to keep up with via Droid.

[Wolf]

Originally Posted by Solfy

On private lives: What if the candidate was an alcoholic? It's not illegal. It's private. Would you vote for an actively drinking alcoholic? What about a dry one?

I do not understand your argument.

[Solfy]

Alcoholism - not illegal. Done in a person's private life. Maybe not even going on anymore. None of our business, or a factor to consider in a candidate?

Just because something is private and personal doesn't mean it has no bearing on their quality as a candidate.

[Wolf]

Originally Posted by Solfy

Alcoholism - not illegal. Done in a person's private life. Maybe not even going on anymore. None of our business, or a factor to consider in a candidate?

None of our business.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by Solfy

Alcoholism - not illegal. Done in a person's private life. Maybe not even going on anymore. None of our business, or a factor to consider in a candidate?

Just because something is private and personal doesn't mean it has no bearing on their quality as a candidate.

By that metric: just because something is considered to be a bad trait by some doesn't mean it's automatically as damaging as an addiction. Please note: philandering =/= sex addiction, but sex addiction would be as damaging as any other type. I do think addiction would preclude anyone from holding high office, as it severely impedes judgment and the ability to make rational decisions.

[Wolf Larsen]

Originally Posted by Solfy

Does it matter? If you're not close and you want to stick it in someone else (or have someone else stick it in you), divorce the spouse first. Problem solved.

On private lives: What if the candidate was an alcoholic? It's not illegal. It's private. Would you vote for an actively drinking alcoholic? What about a dry one?

Active alky? Nope. Dry one? Maybe. Depends on how long they've had sobriety.

[u wan buy dvd?]

If an addiction precludes them, then it fucking precludes them. They aren't going to be cogent enough to run and win a massive campaign anyway.