Your Private Life Affects Your Public Life

[Ronin Truth]

He endorsed neocon Ted Cruz? To me that says a lot. He's no Ron Paul.

He voted for TPA. Another red flag.

And apparently he attended a Bilderberg meeting? Of course he downplayed it. I wouldn't trust the guy, he sounds like a duplicitous creep. Not only for being a serial cheater, but it's a gut feeling I have just from doing a bit of research. To me he seems to be just like a lot of R/D's, just going along with the charade, but in reality have already sold out to the PTSB.

'Bilderberg attendee' is my nail in his political coffin.

Rothschild Zionist?

 

[MelissaWV]

Yes, and that metric is simply a matter of public record. We all can find out how many times a candidate has been married or when his sexual infidelities have been exposed to the public. That's all I'm touching on when I mention Trump's multiple marriages as a basis for questioning his fidelities to the American people and the States. Obviously, I can't find out every instance of sexual deviancy from a candidate, so I can only stick with information that is known in the public domain.

And to that point, I can generally say that Darrell Castle's marital commitment is much better than Trump's, as evidenced here.

So really, if you look at it, you're looking for a candidate who doesn't get caught. If someone cheats once, but gets caught, they're no longer worthy. If they cheat 100 times, and manage to keep it hushed up, it's not a matter of public record and it magically does not affect their ability to govern.

 

[Krugminator2]

But what did Mark Sanford do once his affairs were made public? Did he reason, "Well, I've been advocating for smaller government in my state, so I'll stay in office, even though I was caught cheating on my wife"? No, of course not. Sanford knew that his credibility as a principled governor was shot in the public's eye, so he resigned (and rightfully so). He understood the correlation between his infidelities to his wife and the ramifications of them in holding a public office in his constituents' trust.

Well, he actually didn't resign. He stayed on. He was pressured to. Everyone needlessly shamed him for something that had nothing to do with his actual job. And he must not of thought he credibility was that shot, because he then ran for Congress and has done a great job since.

He endorsed neocon Ted Cruz? To me that says a lot. He's no Ron Paul.

He voted for TPA. Another red flag.

And apparently he attended a Bilderberg meeting? Of course he downplayed it. I wouldn't trust the guy, he sounds like a duplicitous creep. Not only for being a serial cheater, but it's a gut feeling I have just from doing a bit of research. To me he seems to be just like a lot of R/D's, just going along with the charade, but in reality have already sold out to the PTSB.

He committed to endorsing Rand. He appeared at Rand's campaign kickoff. He was somebody the campaign was holding in the hopper if Rand were still in the race. Rand dropped out after Iowa. Sanford only endorsed Cruz one day before the South Carolina Primary and he gave his reason as wanting to stop Trump.

Ron Paul endorsed Sanford. "The libertarianCato Institute ranked Sanford as the best governor in America in their 2010 fiscal policy report card, describing him as "a staunch supporter of spending restraint and pro-growth tax reforms".

I would have voted for TPA. I did vote for Cruz. I don't know anything about Builderberg nor do I want to. I just watched that clip. Sanford was the President of the Republican Governors Association when that was filmed and he was patiently entertaining the questions of an insane person. He seems like a pretty good guy watching that clip.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Well, he actually didn't resign. He stayed on. He was pressured to. Everyone needlessly shamed him for something that had nothing to do with his actual job. And he must not of thought he credibility was that shot, because he then ran for Congress and has done a great job since.




He committed to endorsing Rand. He appeared at Rand's campaign kickoff. He was somebody the campaign was holding in the hopper if Rand were still in the race. Rand dropped out after Iowa. Sanford only endorsed Cruz one day before the South Carolina Primary and he gave his reason as wanting to stop Trump.

Ron Paul endorsed Sanford. "The libertarianCato Institute ranked Sanford as the best governor in America in their 2010 fiscal policy report card, describing him as "a staunch supporter of spending restraint and pro-growth tax reforms".

I would have voted for TPA. I did vote for Cruz. I don't know anything about Builderberg nor do I want to. I just watched that clip. Sanford was the President of the Republican Governors Association when that was filmed and he was patiently entertaining the questions of an insane person. He seems like a pretty good guy watching that clip.

Yep, that's the sheeple ticket. Sure wouldn't want to threaten nor perhaps impact your support for Sanford.

 

[Krugminator2]

Yep, that's the sheeple ticket. Sure wouldn't want to threaten nor perhaps impact your support for Sanford.

I just watched that clip. He was the President of the RGA. He got asked. He attended. He said he didn't get much out of it. I don't see why that is bad. Why would he not attend if he were asked? And he would be the kind of person who would get asked given his place in politics.

 

[timosman]

So really, if you look at it, you're looking for a candidate who doesn't get caught. If someone cheats once, but gets caught, they're no longer worthy. If they cheat 100 times, and manage to keep it hushed up, it's not a matter of public record and it magically does not affect their ability to govern.

We had a such nice purity test developed and you broke it. Now we are going to come up with a new one. I am going to tell the teacher!

 

[Ronin Truth]

I just watched that clip. He was the President of the RGA. He got asked. He attended. He said he didn't get much out of it. I don't see why that is bad. Why would he not attend if he were asked? And he would be the kind of person who would get asked given his place in politics.

FWIW, neither Ron nor Rand would attend, even if invited.

They won't be.

 

[Theocrat]

A Consistent Record of Vow-Keeping

So really, if you look at it, you're looking for a candidate who doesn't get caught. If someone cheats once, but gets caught, they're no longer worthy. If they cheat 100 times, and manage to keep it hushed up, it's not a matter of public record and it magically does not affect their ability to govern.

No, I'm looking for a candidate who has a proven record of keeping his vows, and fidelity in marriage is one of the best ways to verify that. Sure, many people can keep their affairs secret for a little while, but in the providence of God, their affairs are usually found out, just as it has happened numerous times to politicians (such as Mark Sanford).

My point to Smitty was that I don't need to delve deeply into the sexual lives of politicians in order to know whether or not they've been faithful to their vows. If a person is a habitual cheater, then that behavior has a way of surfacing itself, especially through their political duties. It's almost inevitable.

But my original point still stands: if a person (like Donald Trump) cannot keep his vows to the woman he claims to love with all of his heart, then what do you think he will do to strangers as a President? What you do in your private life reflects how you behave in your public life, especially with keeping one's word.

 

[MelissaWV]

No, I'm looking for a candidate who has a proven record of keeping his vows, and fidelity in marriage is one of the best ways to verify that. Sure, many people can keep their affairs secret for a little while, but in the providence of God, their affairs are usually found out, just as it has happened numerous times to politicians (such as Mark Sanford).

Many times, however, those affairs don't come to light until well after the election or whatever political initiation takes place. You could pass over someone with a couple of divorces and a couple of affairs for what is later revealed to be someone who "cheated" by molesting children.

You are making a philosophical, omniscient statement and I get that, but in practicality you are relying on things coming to light with the coincidental timing of a Hollywood movie, with the serendipitous reveal of the affair or other moral failing prior to votes being cast.

Without regard to policies --- serious question --- do you actually respect Hillary more, since she has stood by her man even after his admitted affairs, some pretty strong allegations of mutual abuse, and the history of her threatening women who brought forward allegations of sexual misconduct?

 

[Ronin Truth]

Many times, however, those affairs don't come to light until well after the election or whatever political initiation takes place. You could pass over someone with a couple of divorces and a couple of affairs for what is later revealed to be someone who "cheated" by molesting children.

You are making a philosophical, omniscient statement and I get that, but in practicality you are relying on things coming to light with the coincidental timing of a Hollywood movie, with the serendipitous reveal of the affair or other moral failing prior to votes being cast.

Without regard to policies --- serious question --- do you actually respect Hillary more, since she has stood by her man even after his admitted affairs, some pretty strong allegations of mutual abuse, and the history of her threatening women who brought forward allegations of sexual misconduct?

Gary Hart

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Gary+Hart