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.
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.
The irony of this (to use imagery from The Dark Knight Trilogy) is that Donald Trump serves more of a role as "The Joker," to his libertarian supporters because, for them, Trump is "destroying the establishment within the GOP," thus, weakening the two-party political structure, supposedly. So, in a sense, Trump's supporters "want to watch the world burn."
I'm in Japan right now, and I'm not planning to vote by an absentee ballot, only because the candidate I would support is not on the ticket in my state--Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party. But, of course, sexual purity is just one of the prerequisites that I look for in a candidate of my choosing.
A person's sexual purity is one of the most important factors about a person's character because it deals with his deepest commitments to intimacy. While I agree with you that Washington D.C. is filled with hedonism, that's all the more reason why we need a President (or any political figure, for that matter) who does not give in to his sexual desires that violate his commitment to his spouse, just as we want him to resist the temptation to take power that he is not authorized to have by the Constitution.
The two are linked. The more we ignore the truth that what a person does in his private life comes to light in his public life, the more we will continue to allow corrupt people to sit in seats of public office because those people hide themselves under empty promises and false allegiances to correct principles and policies. I'm going to be crude here and say that, on a basic, ethical level, where a person chooses to stick his dick in at night determines how he uses his pen in the daytime.
Exactly. Generally speaking, we all look for some sort of credentials from a person before we trust them to perform a service to us, which in this case, we're investigating ethical credentials. Ethical credentials do matter, especially when a person is seeking the most prestigious office in America. If someone believes that it's okay to break sacred bonds whenever it's convenient for himself, then it's more than likely he will act on that in other areas of his life, such as in business or in civics.
Yes, I understand that there have been Presidents who were faithful in marriage, and yet they did not uphold their oaths of office, betraying the American people and the States. But those Presidents were hypocrites.
The point I'm driving at is that Donald Trump has a history of breaking his vows to love someone for all of his life, and that says a lot about himself as a person. If he were elected, then it would make sense for him to not be faithful to his oath because he has done that throughout his life with people who were supposed to be his highest object of love. As lilymc so eloquently put it:
All I'm saying is that, at the outset of the general election, there is no reason to expect Trump to do any of the things that he claims to do (whether it's abolishing trade deals, having a sensible foreign policy, or anything else that members of this forum praise him for) because he does not honor oaths in his own personal life.
So basically Paul did not have any solution. Sucks to be him.
I have done a 180 on this issue. Send them home. Every single one of them. If they get caught twice, then they can go to prison before they go home.
If you're trying to appeal to the anti-authoritarian in me, this is the one issue that won't work with. They are a problem, and it needs to be solved. There's no perfect solution, but at this point I'll settle for any solution that does not involve making them citizens.
Juan, no comprendo... ""Now there's a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants," he continued. "You say, no not immigrants, it's just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy."
I understand how Paul feels. I also know that he tried, unsuccessfully, to get the Constitution amended so that illegally born babies would not automatically qualify for citizenship. Here is one of his official campaign ads.
He is on record stating that you cannot have a nation without borders. He is the person who taught me that the people at the ratifying convention stated on the record that "obviously" it would not apply to people who were here illegally.
These fine folks have prepared a list of things illegals are eligible for. It says, "KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!"
Free school lunches are on the list, Juan. http://www.childrensaidsociety.org/files/upload-docs/11-Benefits_for_Immigrants-1.pdf
"Your mother's dead, before long I'll be dead, and you...and your brother and your sister and all of her children, all of us dead, all of us..rotting in the ground. It's the family name that lives on. It's all that lives on. Not your personal glory, not your honor, but family." - Tywin Lannister