The Silence Around Character: A Leadership Question

[SgtSpiderMan]

Well! There’s a lot of context missing between McCain and Trump.

Someone else working hard to avoid answering a simple question.

 

[Lazaran]

Clinton didn't say "I loathe the military". He wrote to Col. Eugene Holmes of the Arkansas ROTC, "I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give." Agree or disagree, love it or hate it, what he said was certainly true at the time - and more to the point, it's not what you claim he said.

What Clinton did was certainly wrong, but Monica Lewinsky was a consenting adult. Epstein's victims were not, nor was E. Jean Carroll or the other couple of dozen women who have accused Trump of assault or harassment. (I'm also not aware of any evidence that Lewinsky was "emotionally disturbed".)

Not to his victims it isn't.

You forgot the part where those two "very worst candidates imaginable" beat him in 2020.

I suspect some people feel I am too harsh when I refer to BabyBoobs as a TOTAL POS MAGAT GASLIGHTER, but that post you just responded to is CLASSIC BabyBoobs’ GASLIGHTING.

BabyBoobs’ shameless rationalizations, false equivalencies, and rewriting of history in that post is beyond the pale.

BabyBoobs IS a TOTAL POS MAGAT GASLIGHTER; full stop.



We. Told. Them. So.

 

[icanhelp1]

You want a prim and proper president. I see. Like Carter or Biden. Who cares whether they try to subvert an election with false claims of Russian collision. LBJ was a foul moth womanizer. He was one of yours. Trump says it like it is. Yeah, it's different. It's what the shit hole of politics looks like without the mask.

Democrats love to flaunt the prim and proper *look at me* I’m the moral compass for the country. Then you dig. The Kennedy’s, for example, were some of the most morally corrupt politicians in history followed closely by the Clinton’s. Biden’s was never prim and proper by any measure. Hillary was almost disbarred fresh out of law school.

 

[icanhelp1]

Someone else working hard to avoid answering a simple question.

Nope! Context matters, matters a lot. Democrats trivialized JD Vance’s military service. Politics is nasty.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Nope! Context matters, matters a lot. Democrats trivialized JD Vance’s military service. Politics is nasty.

So in what contexts is it ok to make fun of a disabled person?

 

[icanhelp1]

So in what contexts is it ok to make fun of a disabled person?

When 2 politicians go at it all bets are off.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

When 2 politicians go at it all bets are off.

Ok, well that doesn’t apply here.
So again, did any other politician make fun of a disabled person?

 

[icanhelp1]

Ok, well that doesn’t apply here.
So again, did any other politician make fun of a disabled person?

Maybe!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Maybe!

Ok, who is the politician?

 

[icanhelp1]

Ok, who is the politician?

Don't fucking care!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Don't fucking care!

Ok, so you’re just a horrible person.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

But this President is not a good human being, and there's simply no way around this truth.

Objectively speaking, he is the very worst humanity has produced, a moral bottom-feeder without scruples or conscience or decency. Outside of those indoctrinated into his dwindling, sycophantic death cult, the entire world is in agreement on this.

He is the vile personification of the Ugly American, which is why, as long as he is here and as long as he represents and holds power over this nation, we will be a dangerous place, a fractured mess, and a global embarrassment. He will ever be lowering the bar of our legacy in the world and poisoning the collective fates of hundreds of millions of people.

https://johnpavlovitz.substack.com/...QqL44nt22yiDlj5X-J_aem_o9BG-T8fX5kju5nl7X_mDw

 

[dmallord]

"But this President is not a good human being, and there's simply no way around this truth.

"Objectively speaking, he is the very worst humanity has produced, a moral bottom-feeder without scruples or conscience or decency. Outside of those indoctrinated into his dwindling, sycophantic death cult, the entire world is in agreement on this.

"He is the vile personification of the Ugly American, which is why, as long as he is here and as long as he represents and holds power over this nation, we will be a dangerous place, a fractured mess, and a global embarrassment. He will ever be lowering the bar of our legacy in the world and poisoning the collective fates of hundreds of millions of people."

https://johnpavlovitz.substack.com/...QqL44nt22yiDlj5X-J_aem_o9BG-T8fX5kju5nl7X_mDw

Thank you for pointing out this article. I hadn’t seen it before. It reflects a strong moral judgment on Trump’s character and on those who continue to support him. I initially thought the quoted lines were your words, but I see now they’re from John Pavlovitz—a progressive Christian author and former pastor known for writing about politics, faith, and morality from an unapologetically ethical perspective.

I assume, since you shared it, that you find truth in his perspective. So do I.

These two paragraphs, in particular, struck a chord with me:

"What is painfully obvious in these moments isn't simply that the person alleging to lead this country is a terrible human being; it is that anyone left still defending him, applauding him, justifying him, celebrating him, probably is too."

"At this point, the only reason left to support a man like this is that he reflects your hateful heart, that he shares your contempt of people of color, your hostility toward outsiders, your toxic misogyny, your ignorant bigotry, and your feelings of supremacy. He is a snarling, vicious, grotesque avatar who says the things you believe and hurts the people you want to hurt."

That may be difficult for some to read—but maybe that’s the point. Moral clarity isn’t always comfortable. This thread was never about left versus right. It was about asking whether we still care about character in those we choose to lead us.

Unfortunately, many replies above fall back into the pattern of “what about this Democrat” or “look over there.” Others resort to personal insults or derision. These responses avoid the central question entirely—perhaps because it’s a hard one to face. But when your only answer to a moral challenge is deflection or attack, it says something about the ground you're standing on.

 

[dmallord]

When 2 politicians go at it all bets are off.

It doesn't have to be that way. When I was young, political debates on television were civil. No longer. That's because we allow those types of politicians to go off the rails without calling them out for it.

Do you not yearn for civility and decency in politics?

 

[Saint_Ann]

It doesn't have to be that way. When I was young, political debates on television were civil. No longer. That's because we allow those types of politicians to go off the rails without calling them out for it.

Do you not yearn for civility and decency in politics?

Society back then was more civil in general. I want politics to be less corrupt. If someone has to say 'fuck' to get it done, then let it be so.

 

[ll74]

Society back then was more civil in general. I want politics to be less corrupt. If someone has to say 'fuck' to get it done, then let it be so.

Back when slaves were picking cotton?

 

[Saint_Ann]

Back when slaves were picking cotton?

Just how old do you think dmallord is? Lol.

 

[Lance_Castro]

So in what contexts is it ok to make fun of a disabled person?

Sure plays a mean pinball.

 

[Lance_Castro]

So in what contexts is it ok to make fun of a disabled person?

South Park

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

South Park

I’ll bite, so which politician went on South Park to make fun of a disabled person?

 

[Lance_Castro]

So in what contexts is it ok to make fun of a disabled person?

When we make fun of You.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

When we make fun of You.

Ok, so it never happened. Thanks.

 

[Lance_Castro]

Hahaha!

You’re not very good at this.

 

[dmallord]

Hahaha!

You’re not very good at this.

You have a talent for sarcasm, which is clear in many of your posts. But since you’ve weighed in on a serious topic, maybe it's time to set aside the humor and share what you really think.

This thread is about character, not just politics. Do you believe the president shows the kind of moral judgment a leader should have? Or do you support him despite that? Or maybe because of it?

Even our neighbors up north have a moral compass—so how about you step out from behind the one-liners and give us your perspective? I genuinely want to know: Where do you draw the line when it comes to leadership and ethics?

 

[Lance_Castro]

You have a talent for sarcasm, which is clear in many of your posts. But since you’ve weighed in on a serious topic, maybe it's time to set aside the humor and share what you really think.

This thread is about character, not just politics. Do you believe the president shows the kind of moral judgment a leader should have? Or do you support him despite that? Or maybe because of it?

Even our neighbors up north have a moral compass—so how about you step out from behind the one-liners and give us your perspective? I genuinely want to know: Where do you draw the line when it comes to leadership and ethics?

I think the USA has had lots of Presidents of low character.

Some very likable rascals!

Clinton, George W and Trump, for example.

You just dont like trump.

Rightguard didn’t like biden.

So what? Get over yourself!
Lol