Should Trump Resign Over "Hellhole" Comment?

[Adrift]

I never said I was fine with it, Adrift, and I don't think the left positions itself as a party with no ethics. The left simply doesn't make "ethics" and "family values" and "morality" a core part of its identity and messaging; the Christian right does. As a consequence, the right has set itself a higher moral bar by explicitly making that a focus of its message. The problem is one of messaging. From the perspective of many, the right is appearing to be a group that preaches morality, then ignores it when it politically suites them, leaving the impression of incredible hypocrisy.

I'm not saying the situation is right, wrong, desireable, undesirable, etc. I'm simply noting that the situation exists, and I think it will eventually give the right some serious heartburn.

The left, on the other hand, focuses on the individual issues (e.g., gay rights, pro-choice, etc.) as individually desirable (without usually using the language of moral/ethical), creeating a lower bar on that front.

Yes, I'm fully aware that when Christians vote for someone who appears to be immoral, it leaves a bad taste. I have a relatively relevant thread on the subject here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...olitical-Party

I still think it odd that one would want to be a part of a political group seen as having no view on ethics/morality, and that it can be said that they can vote for moral monsters without looking like hypocrites.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, I'm fully aware that when Christians vote for someone who appears to be immoral, it leaves a bad taste. I have a relatively relevant thread on the subject here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...olitical-Party

I still think it odd that one would want to be a part of a political group seen as having no view on ethics/morality, and that it can be said that they can vote for moral monsters without looking like hypocrites.

While I can understand it looks that way to you, I don't think that's the way it looks to the left. The folks I know on the left see themselves as making moral choices, and voting for moral candidates - they simply disagree with the right as to what constitutes "moral." The difference is that they do not emphasize "morality/ethics" in the platform or messaging. Not emphasizing it does not mean they do not consider it important or that they do not practice it. It means they have made a conscious choice to address individual issues, rather than making a broad-based claim to "being righteous." That absence is largely reflective of the fact that the left tends to be more comfortable with the idea that individuals have differences in what they consider to be "moral," so an emphasis on "moral/ethical" is just an invitation to massive discord.

[Sparko]

I'm surprised THAT came as a surprise!

And I am now surprised that you are surprised that that came as a surprise.

[Sparko]

Is. It's not like he became a changed person just because he got elected president. The guy's been married three times, cheated on his first wife with his mistress, openly admitted to being a player between marriages, has a long history with Playboy and Hugh Hefner (including appearing on one of the covers), over a dozen sexual harassment allegations, was caught on tape saying disgusting things about how he hits on married women, and gets away with grabbing women because he's a wealthy celebrity. I've seen absolutely no indication that he sincerely regrets that long sordid history, or has become some champion for sexual morality.

That all sounds like "WAS"

He also became a Christian, so he says. Everything you mention is in the past, so you don't have any evidence of him being sexually immoral now but are just assuming it based on his past?

[Adrift]

While I can understand it looks that way to you, I don't think that's the way it looks to the left. The folks I know on the left see themselves as making moral choices, and voting for moral candidates - they simply disagree with the right as to what constitutes "moral." The difference is that they do not emphasize "morality/ethics" in the platform or messaging. Not emphasizing it does not mean they do not consider it important or that they do not practice it. It means they have made a conscious choice to address individual issues, rather than making a broad-based claim to "being righteous." That absence is largely reflective of the fact that the left tends to be more comfortable with the idea that individuals have differences in what they consider to be "moral," so an emphasis on "moral/ethical" is just an invitation to massive discord.

In my opinion, regardless or whether or not you emphasize it, you should not think yourself above being a hypocrite for electing people who do immoral things if you think one ought to be moral. Both right and left can be hypocrites for electing people with poor morals/ethics. This doesn't appear to me to be only a Right-leaning thing.

[Sparko]

Sparko...really? The man was recorded on audio bragging about sexual exploitation. He's been married three times (which isn't a problem for me - but usually is for the Christian right). He has been recorded saying some outrageous things about his own daughter. He bragged about being able to go backstage and "inspect" beauty pageant candidates as they were dressing. And there is a long line of people claiming he sexually harassed them. You can ignore ALL of that and say he is not "sexually immoral?"

He has been caught twisting fact after fact after fact, setting records for flat-out-wrong statements when he speaks, and clinging to his statement even in the face of audio, video, and or evidence that he was not correct. He tells us, in his book, that lying is perfectly acceptable in negotiations if it gets you what you want. He explicitly TELLS us that he is a liar, and you reject that and say he is not?

As for racist, I have heard his words, seen his actions, and heard too many attestations to things he has said. Apparently, there are reels and reels of excised footage from The Apprentice with him saying outrageously racial things, and these will never see the light of day because Trump is still executive producer and controls the content. If this man is SO innocent, can someone explain to me why we still have not seen his tax returns, cannot see that excised footage, and so forth?

I'm sorry - but the lengths to which the right goes to defend this horrendous man (and others like him) is one of the main reasons that much of the nation increasingly sees the religious right as having lost its claim to moral righteousness. There are more and more of this kind of article from other religious groups as well as from moderates and the left. These are the very groups from which the religious right needs to recruit - because you cannot recruit from yourself. This is what I meant, in another post, about the long-term harm I think the religious right is doing to its own objectives. It is increasingly being seen as an immoral group, rather than a moral one.

I never claimed he was innocent. I just think the left likes to make up a bunch of crap and accuse him of things he is not guilty of. Like you kinda just did. You have no evidence that he is currently sexually immoral, everything you listed is in the past. He has not said anything racist yet that is what you hear and you spout rumors and conspiracy theories as proof.

When actual current evidence shows him to be a sexually immoral, racist liar then I won't defend him. Until then I give him the benefit of the doubt and will defend him against innuendo and false accusations.

I don't particularly LIKE the guy. I think he is an egomaniac and someone needs to get him to think before he shoots his mouth off.

[Adrift]

That all sounds like "WAS"

He also became a Christian, so he says. Everything you mention is in the past, so you don't have any evidence of him being sexually immoral now but are just assuming it based on his past?

Come on man. Seriously? I'm basing it on a lifetime of behavior. And if you believe this guy is a Christian, I have a bridge to sell you. We're talking about the same guy who promoted himself as a social liberal during the campaign, correct? The guy who was holding up gay pride flags? Snap out of it brother. Trump is as much a Christian as Obama is.

[carpedm9587]

And I am now surprised that you are surprised that that came as a surprise.

Your surprise at my surprise that you are surprised is not much of a surprise.

[carpedm9587]

In my opinion, regardless or whether or not you emphasize it, you should not think yourself above being a hypocrite for electing people who do immoral things if you think one ought to be moral. Both right and left can be hypocrites for electing people with poor morals/ethics. This doesn't appear to me to be only a Right-leaning thing.

At no point did I say anything about what I think about myself, Adrift. I make my choices in the ballot box for the candidate that most aligns with my moral and policy priorities from the available candidates, as I suspect most people do. Frankly, I assume the right is doing the same thing. And I suspect most people would come to that realization about the right if that was a strong part of the messaging, and there was a strong pattern of holding these elected officials to account post-election. However, what I am seeing is both sides electing "their team" and then, post election, vociferously defending "their team."

However, the right has made a big issue of emphasizing their moral righteousness, which the left generaly has not done. That means that the right is essentially spotlighting their own hypocrisy, where the left is not. That doesn't make the left better than the right or the right better than the left. As I said, it's a matter of messaging and perception.

Unfortunately, in politics (and many other things), perception often becomes reality. I've been saying for a bit that the signs continue to grow for a coming significant wave election. I think this perception is going to be a factor in that wave, and I think we are already seeing many signs of it happening.

[Sparko]

Come on man. Seriously? I'm basing it on a lifetime of behavior. And if you believe this guy is a Christian, I have a bridge to sell you. We're talking about the same guy who promoted himself as a social liberal during the campaign, correct? The guy who was holding up gay pride flags? Snap out of it brother. Trump is as much a Christian as Obama is.

I have my doubts too, but again, NO EVIDENCE OF CURRENT SEXUAL IMMORALITY. So until there is, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[carpedm9587]

I never claimed he was innocent. I just think the left likes to make up a bunch of crap and accuse him of things he is not guilty of. Like you kinda just did. You have no evidence that he is currently sexually immoral, everything you listed is in the past. He has not said anything racist yet that is what you hear and you spout rumors and conspiracy theories as proof.

When actual current evidence shows him to be a sexually immoral, racist liar then I won't defend him. Until then I give him the benefit of the doubt and will defend him against innuendo and false accusations.

I don't particularly LIKE the guy. I think he is an egomaniac and someone needs to get him to think before he shoots his mouth off.

Sparko - my opinion of Trump is based on HIS words and actions, both past and present. For the past, I loook for any sign of a person acknowledging, owning, and repenting their choices. I have seen none of that. The one time it came close (the Access Hollywood tape), we got a lukewarm apology and an immediate pivot to "it's just locker room talk" and "Clinton did worse." The liar claim is in his own book, he's never renounced it that I know of, and he continues to lie publicly and regularly. When someone says something wrong, I can chalk it up to "just wrong." When someone says something wrong, and then continues to put forward the point when shown the evidence that it was wrong - they become a liar. When they have previously told me they think that is acceptable, that pretty much cements it. Trump does that regularly. His mantra (again, from his own published works) is that to admit error is to admit weakness - so you never do that.

As for the racist issue - I again give you his own words and choice of language. I have two black children. I have come to know the difference between someone who just uses sloppy language or uses language unthinkingly, and someone who is actively racist. Trump shows all of the signs of the latter. He has shown less racial diversity in his appointments than any president I know of on record. He has failed, repeatedly, to denounce racist organizations when presented with the opportunity to do so, has delayed when he does, and has made those denouncements grudgingly and conditionally. There are too many close acquaintances that have attested to incredible comments he has made. There is, frankly, no doubt my mind that he is racist. As someone once said about pornography, "I know it when I see it."

And his denial of that holds no water for me. Like you, I give people the benefit of the doubt until I have cause not to. When a man tells me he is willing to lie to me to achieve his ends, I accept his word that he is a liar and judge accordingly thereafter. When he consistently keeps lying to me, I have no basis for believing his core belief about lying has changed. The man bullies, ridicules, is vindictive, childish, and has so many other incredibly bad qualities, I keep shaking my head shen people give him the "benefit of the doubt." His moral compromise is so obvious to me, it strikes me as highly unlikely it is not equally obvious to most others.

[Adrift]

At no point did I say anything about what I think about myself, Adrift. I make my choices in the ballot box for the candidate that most aligns with my moral and policy priorities from the available candidates, as I suspect most people do.

I think you're confusing my use of the word "you". I wasn't using it in the direct sense, but in the general one.

However, the right has made a big issue of emphasizing their moral righteousness, which the left generaly has not done. That means that the right is essentially spotlighting their own hypocrisy, where the left is not. That doesn't make the left better than the right or the right better than the left. As I said, it's a matter of messaging and perception.

Yes, I hear you. I still find it odd. You'd think it's something that should go without saying. It's almost as though the left could elect someone who had a sordid history, and it would be no big deal, because...well...they don't emphasize righteousness, so it's all good. That's...eww...to me.

Unfortunately, in politics (and many other things), perception often becomes reality. I've been saying for a bit that the signs continue to grow for a coming significant wave election. I think this perception is going to be a factor in that wave, and I think we are already seeing many signs of it happening.

You're preaching to the choir.

[Roy]

I have my doubts too, but again, NO EVIDENCE OF CURRENT SEXUAL IMMORALITY.

He's 71. How sexually active do you expect him to be at that age?

[Sparko]

He's 71. How sexually active do you expect him to be at that age?

Fine. then the democrats should stop accusing him of being sexually immoral huh?

[Cow Poke]

Your surprise at my surprise that you are surprised is not much of a surprise.

I'm stunned.