Your Private Life Affects Your Public Life

[Suzanimal]

It all ties in together. It is foolish to think that a person who is dishonest and dishonorable in their private life (to the people who supposedly matter the most to them) is going to be honest and honorable in their public life, to strangers.

This is why we’re in the mess we’re in today. Because people compartmentalize.

A liar is a liar. A cheater is a cheater. A crook is a crook.

Why do you think Ron Paul was such a great candidate? He was rare in the sense that he actually had principles which he stood by, he was (is) honest and reliable. He’s been saying the same thing for years. You know what you’re getting with him.

Anyone who thinks that character doesn’t count deserves whatever they get, in this God-forsaken joke of an election.

No one's said character doesn't count but I don't hold divorce against someone. It seems his ex-wives have forgiven him and his children clearly adore him and since all I know about his personal life is from a tabloid, I don't think I'm qualified to judge what went on in those marriages. The rich, womanizing husband makes for juicy gossip but we really don't know the truth.

 

[Ronin Truth]

So, how come mainly women, elected POTUS Bubba, TWICE ?

Probably elected JFK POTUS too.

 

[lilymc]

No one's said character doesn't count but I don't hold divorce against someone. It seems his ex-wives have forgiven him and his children clearly adore him and since all I know about his personal life is from a tabloid, I don't think I'm qualified to judge what went on in those marriages. The rich, womanizing husband makes for juicy gossip but we really don't know the truth.

I can't speak for anyone else but I don't hold divorce against someone either. I was speaking in general, not so much about Trump in particular. I just get tired of people thinking that things like honesty, loyalty, principles, etc don't matter in a leader. If you can't trust a leader, then all the other stuff (what they claim their positions are, etc) doesn't really matter.

 

[MelissaWV]

Yet another thing that disqualifies me from becoming President for any reason lol

 

[heavenlyboy34]

because the oath of office is not legally binding. It's just show-off nonsense.

+rep

 

[timosman]

I can't speak for anyone else but I don't hold divorce against someone either. I was speaking in general, not so much about Trump in particular. I just get tired of people thinking that things like honesty, loyalty, principles, etc don't matter in a leader. If you can't trust a leader, then all the other stuff (what they claim their positions are, etc) doesn't really matter.

When was the last time in history you could "trust a leader"?

 

[lilymc]

When was the last time in history you could "trust a leader"?

If you're using the word leader in a general sense, I've known a number of leaders I can trust. If you're talking only about US politics, not so much. But that doesn't mean you have to vote for a typical slimy politician, just because you think you have no choice. I think it's better to vote one's conscience (or not at all) than get manipulated into playing their "lesser of two evils" game every damn 4 years.

 

[Krugminator2]

This is a common argument but there is no correlation between being faithful to a spouse and obeying the Constitution as an elected official.

Mark Sanford is a perfect example. He is outstanding. I would make him President for Life if I could.

Cheating on a spouse is immoral. But being fat is immoral as well. There are a lot of things that are immoral. Donald Trump's personal life shouldn't be a consideration.

 

[Mad Raven]

You know what, you're right. Let's hold Trump's feet to the fire of God and hold him to the principles outlined herein like all the rest of us sinners.

http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/1...-from-the-christian-right/Content?oid=2146586

Can I get an AMEN brother!

I can only assume he hath never engaged in self-loving. You know what, I will pray for him anyway and help casteth those demons awayest.

 

[Natural Citizen]

This is a common argument but there is no correlation between being faithful to a spouse and obeying the Constitution as an elected official.

No. Your assessment of the moral correlation between Man and governmental philosophy is patantly false. To your credit, though, it is simply a misguided assessment. Respectfully.

The fundamentally religious basis of America's traditional governmental philosophy is the foundation of its moral code.

Let us review how and why. The second paragraph of the United States Declaration of Independence starts as follows...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Again...all men are created...endowed by their Creator

This is the fundamental foundation for the traditional American philosophy that Man is of Divine origin. That his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material.

This American governmental philosophy is therefore religious in nature. This philosophy is uniquely American in that no other people have ever made this principle the foundation for their governmental philosophy.The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. To forget these truths is a most heinous offense against the spirit of traditional America because the greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin.

There is a precise explanation that I'd read in a good book on the topic of American governmental pholosophy. One that I've referenced here and one that I'll share here again in the interest of your misguided; incorrect assessment of the correlation of moral foundation that dictates, not only proper Man-to-Man relations, but, proper Man-to-Man relations as they correlate to proper Man-to-Government relations. The name of the book was The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles. Good book...

Anyway...The fundamentally religious basis of this philosophy is the foundation of its moral code, which contemplates The Individual's moral duty as being created by God's Law: the Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law; while knowledge of this duty comes from conscience, which the religious-minded and morally-aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. This philosophy asserts that there are moral absolutes: truths, such as those mentioned above, which are binding upon all Individuals at all times under all circumstances. This indicates some of the spiritual and moral values which are inherent in its concept of Individual Liberty-Responsibility.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.The American philosophy, based upon this principle, is an indivisible whole and must be accepted or rejected as such. It cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits.

The concept of Man's spiritual nature, and the resulting concept of the supreme dignity and value of each Individual, provide the fundamental basis for each Individual's self-respect and the consequent mutual respect among Individual's. This self-respect as well as this mutual respect are the outgrowth of, and evidenced by, The Individual's maintenance of his God-given, unalienable rights. They are maintained by requiring that government and other Individuals respect them, as well as by his dedication to his own unceasing growth toward realization of his highest potential, spiritually, morally, intellectually, in every aspect of life. This is in order that he may merit maximum respect by self and by others.

This concept of Man's spiritual nature excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. It excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force, for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.

It excludes disbelief in, even doubt as to the existence of, God as the Creator of Man and therefore excludes all ideas, theories and schools of thought, however ethical and lofty in intentions, which reject affirmative and positive belief in God as Man's Creator.

Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that "The Spiritual is supreme" can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American, judged by traditional belief.

This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic, neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man's Creator. There is not room for doubt, much less disbelief, in this regard from the standpoint of the traditional American philosophy. Its indivisible nature makes this inescapably true. This pertains, of course, to the realm of ideas and not to any person; it is the conflicting idea which is classified as non-American, according to this philosophy.

The traditional American philosophy teaches that belief in God is the fundamental link which unites the adherents of all religions in a spiritual brotherhood. This philosophy allows for no differentiation between them in this unifying conviction: "....all men are created...endowed by their Creator..." This philosophy is all inclusive as to believers in God. Although America was originally colonized predominantly by adherents of the Christian religion, and principally by Protestants, the Founding Fathers steadfastly conformed to this all-embracing character of the approach of the American philosophy to religion. This was expressly and affirmatively indicated in the proclamation of 1776 of the fundamental American philosophy, of its basic principles, in the Declaration of Independence. This was further indicated, negatively, in 1787-1788 by the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution--as a "blueprint" for the structure of the then proposed Federal government, with strictly limited powers, by not permitting it to possess any power with regard to religion. This implied prohibition against the Federal government was reinforced by the addition of the First Amendment expressly prohibiting it, through the Congress, from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." - the words "an establishment of religion" being intended to mean, specifically and only, a church or religious organization which is established, supported and preferred by the government, like the Church of England establishments then existing in some of the States.

Belief in Man's Divine origin is the foundation of the fundamental American principle which controls his relationship to government: that Man, The Individual, is of supreme dignity and value because of his spiritual nature

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This is a common argument but there is no correlation between being faithful to a spouse and obeying the Constitution as an elected official.

Mark Sanford is a perfect example. He is outstanding. I would make him President for Life if I could.

Cheating on a spouse is immoral. But being fat is immoral as well. There are a lot of things that are immoral. Donald Trump's personal life shouldn't be a consideration.

Where do you get that? Some people get fat because of medications, medical conditions, old age, etc.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Yet another thing that disqualifies me from becoming President for any reason lol

What, sanity?

 

[Natural Citizen]

But being fat is immoral as well.

Where do you get that?

I suspect that it comes from either a misunderstanding of what the true foundation for moral code actually is, particularly given Krug's misguided assessment of its correlation between Man and government previously, or never knowing what the true foundation for moral code is at all. I suppose that this misunderstanding of what the foundation for moral code actually is, is likely the driver for trends like projecting leadership whose position is that it is an acceptable Man-to-Government relation to force a feller to relinquish his property to another feller at the direction of the barrel of a government gun in the name of Liberty itself and stuff like that.

 

[MelissaWV]

What, sanity?

Nahhh divorce.

There really is a very long list; this is the least of it.

 

[Suzanimal]

Yet another thing that disqualifies me from becoming President for any reason lol

You've been divorced? It seems like everyone's had at least one. Heck, I have a cousin who's been married 6 times and she's only 50. I've never been divorced but I can't think of anyone I know irl (besides my mom) who hasn't been divorced at least once.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Nahhh divorce.

There really is a very long list; this is the least of it.

Well Trump is going to be pushing on that envelope, too.

It didn't seem to be much of a problem for him in the primaries.

 

[MelissaWV]

You've been divorced? It seems like everyone's had at least one. Heck, I have a cousin who's been married 6 times and she's only 50. I've never been divorced but I can't think of anyone I know irl (besides my mom) who hasn't been divorced at least once.

Technically I'm not 100% certain if it's ever been filed and such. I just... left. It's been almost 8 years to the day, though, so I would consider that enough time to be able to say we're divorced It was not a good situation. I know some folks who aren't divorced, and I know others who take to it like it's the national passtime.

 

[Suzanimal]

Technically I'm not 100% certain if it's ever been filed and such. I just... left. It's been almost 8 years to the day, though, so I would consider that enough time to be able to say we're divorced It was not a good situation. I know some folks who aren't divorced, and I know others who take to it like it's the national passtime.

Ah, I've asked Mr Animal for a divorce a few times. He told me no.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Technically I'm not 100% certain if it's ever been filed and such. I just... left. It's been almost 8 years to the day, though, so I would consider that enough time to be able to say we're divorced It was not a good situation. I know some folks who aren't divorced, and I know others who take to it like it's the national passtime.

I did the same thing. You aren't technically divorced, though, until the state has the final say with papers and such. That is if you ever intend to remarry under the authority of the state. Personally, if I ever get married again, it won't be one of those state licensed marriages.

 

[Smitty]

I guess Johnson's out too.

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/394072metro09-29-05.htm

The only candidate who isn't divorced is Hillary,...and that's only because she won't lift her face up outta Huma's crotch long enough to call a lawyer.