Total Posts:97|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Seduction of John Edwards?

dogparktom
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2010 8:13:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I suspect that Rielle Hunter, the mother of John Edwards' love child, seduced the dashing millionaire trial lawyer and Presidential aspirant.
http://en.wikipedia.org... She saw him as a meal ticket and threw away her Yaz. Women of her intelligence level don't get pregnant unless they want to. Why hasn't the entertainment media discussed this possibility? Either way, Edwards certainly is a dim bulb. What do you think?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2010 8:18:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No, John Edwards was a man who constantly sought out younger women at bars and other social settings. Sure, the woman consented, but John was the man on the prowl. I'm going to agree with Claire McCaskill on this one: "I think he's disgusting. I don't think the guy has a soul."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2010 8:23:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/2/2010 8:13:06 PM, dogparktom wrote:
I suspect that Rielle Hunter, the mother of John Edwards' love child, seduced the dashing millionaire trial lawyer and Presidential aspirant.
http://en.wikipedia.org... She saw him as a meal ticket and threw away her Yaz. Women of her intelligence level don't get pregnant unless they want to. Why hasn't the entertainment media discussed this possibility? Either way, Edwards certainly is a dim bulb. What do you think?


I agree, and I think everyone else agrees too. Of course the media has discussed that possibility... err, reality. I really don't understand how people find themselves in an unwanted pregnancy these days. Not only do they hand out free condoms at clinics and are we educated in public schools at a young age about sex (and STDs, pregnancy, etc.) but most girls I know are on birth control if not for preventative reasons than at least to regulate their period. Not to mention that you can only really get pregnant within a 5-7 day period MAX per month (so you're safe from pregnancy over 3/4 the time you have unprotected sex... and most women know when they're ovulating).
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2010 8:24:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/2/2010 8:18:36 PM, Nags wrote:
No, John Edwards was a man who constantly sought out younger women at bars and other social settings. Sure, the woman consented, but John was the man on the prowl. I'm going to agree with Claire McCaskill on this one: "I think he's disgusting. I don't think the guy has a soul."

Well, he did put the rightful blame on John calling him a dim bulb. I agree, but I think a woman of her stature knows damn well the possibility she has of getting pregnant and when. That was planned. He was dumb enough to take the chance.
President of DDO
tmhustler
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2010 8:36:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Edwards was a man with a serious flaw. just like every one. This kind of stuff happens every day.
latest debate http://www.debate.org...
purpose of education only 3 votes so far
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2010 8:47:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/2/2010 8:36:12 PM, tmhustler wrote:
Edwards was a man with a serious flaw. just like every one. This kind of stuff happens every day.

Men cheat on their wives with cancer and make a sex tape every day? News to me. Not to mention he was a Presidential candidate.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2010 11:09:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't think either issue matters much. I do not care that John Edwards had an affair. This does not affect his ability to govern effectively.

I also do not care if Rielle Hunter seduced him and planned to become impregnated by him. This also does not affect his ability to govern.

I do care that he spent campaign funds to support her. Donors gave money to his campaign so that he would use it to become elected - not use it to support/silence his baby's mother.
dogparktom
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 1:09:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/2/2010 11:09:52 PM, JBlake wrote:
I don't think either issue matters much. I do not care that John Edwards had an affair. This does not affect his ability to govern effectively.

I also do not care if Rielle Hunter seduced him and planned to become impregnated by him. This also does not affect his ability to govern.

I do care that he spent campaign funds to support her. Donors gave money to his campaign so that he would use it to become elected - not use it to support/silence his baby's mother.
_____________________________________

I respectfully suggest that your position is not coherent. In your first two sentences you state , in effect, that bad character is irrelevant because he can do the job.

For your third paragraph, regardless of his spending, shouldn't you take the same position?

So his credibility is irrelevant? (He repeatedly lied to his wife and to all the politically interested people in the US.)

Is "good moral character" no longer a relevant category in judging the suitability of elected public officials? Would you hire Edwards as your lawyer? If you were a juror in a case, would you believe Edwards if he was attorney for one of the parties?
Quail_man
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 1:15:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/2/2010 8:13:06 PM, dogparktom wrote:
I suspect that Rielle Hunter, the mother of John Edwards' love child, seduced the dashing millionaire trial lawyer and Presidential aspirant.
http://en.wikipedia.org... She saw him as a meal ticket and threw away her Yaz. Women of her intelligence level don't get pregnant unless they want to. Why hasn't the entertainment media discussed this possibility? Either way, Edwards certainly is a dim bulb. What do you think?


Your right don't blame the man, its always the seductive woman. Poor mistah edwards
Quail_man
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 1:17:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/2/2010 11:09:52 PM, JBlake wrote:
I don't think either issue matters much. I do not care that John Edwards had an affair. This does not affect his ability to govern effectively.

If he can easily lie to his wife, his family and the people who he supposedly cares about most, whats to stop him from so easily doing so to a voter who he doesn't even know nor really care about?

Sorry if you whore around on your wife (who has freakin cancer)the one who you are committed to forever and supposedly love. What's to stop him from whoring around on me.

Just lost my vote
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 4:34:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 1:09:17 PM, dogparktom wrote:

I respectfully suggest that your position is not coherent. In your first two sentences you state , in effect, that bad character is irrelevant because he can do the job.

For your third paragraph, regardless of his spending, shouldn't you take the same position?

So his credibility is irrelevant? (He repeatedly lied to his wife and to all the politically interested people in the US.)

Is "good moral character" no longer a relevant category in judging the suitability of elected public officials? Would you hire Edwards as your lawyer? If you were a juror in a case, would you believe Edwards if he was attorney for one of the parties?

I respectfully suggest that your position is a straw man. He never said that bad character was irrelevant; he said cheating on his wife was irrelevant. Maybe fidelity isn't one of the qualities he perhaps values in a politician. To Tom and QuailMan - Having an affair makes you a bad husband - not necessarily a bad politician. Lying about how you're spending people's money and your campaign funds DOES however make you a bad politician, explicitly. One's relationship with their spouse does not necessarily reflect on the relationship they have with the public. In this case, Edwards both lied to his wife and the public... which is bad, and JBlake agreed. But he's not a bad candidate for cheating on his wife, imo.

You asked if I would hire Edwards as my lawyer and the answer would be no based on the way he lied to the public and mismanaged other people's money. Would I hire him if he hadn't done that knowing that he cheated on his sick wife? Sure, if he was the best for the job. Also, you asked, Tom, "If you were a juror in a case, would you believe Edwards if he was attorney for one of the parties?" My answer to that is that obviously my personal opinion of one's attorney should have no bearing on how I perceive the plaintiff or defendant; I should only take into account the presented facts.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 4:38:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 1:17:27 PM, Quail_man wrote:
At 2/2/2010 11:09:52 PM, JBlake wrote:
I don't think either issue matters much. I do not care that John Edwards had an affair. This does not affect his ability to govern effectively.

If he can easily lie to his wife, his family and the people who he supposedly cares about most, whats to stop him from so easily doing so to a voter who he doesn't even know nor really care about?

One can be a great husband but a crappy politician, and vice versa.

Sorry if you whore around on your wife (who has freakin cancer)the one who you are committed to forever and supposedly love. What's to stop him from whoring around on me.

Lol you happen to hold marriage in a higher regard than a lot of people. Some people - especially traditional people, wealthy people and politicians - are only married to save face (see: The Clintons). Again, that doesn't take away from the guy's work ethic or abilities as a leader. It reflects poorly on his character though for sure so I agree with you there. Good character SHOULD be an important quality; however, politics is so ridiculously corrupt that I don't think people see it that way anymore. Mostly people just want to elect whoever helps them the most financially. Heh.
President of DDO
True2GaGa
Posts: 1,574
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 4:41:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/2/2010 8:23:57 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/2/2010 8:13:06 PM, dogparktom wrote:
I suspect that Rielle Hunter, the mother of John Edwards' love child, seduced the dashing millionaire trial lawyer and Presidential aspirant.
http://en.wikipedia.org... She saw him as a meal ticket and threw away her Yaz. Women of her intelligence level don't get pregnant unless they want to. Why hasn't the entertainment media discussed this possibility? Either way, Edwards certainly is a dim bulb. What do you think?


I agree, and I think everyone else agrees too. Of course the media has discussed that possibility... err, reality. I really don't understand how people find themselves in an unwanted pregnancy these days. Not only do they hand out free condoms at clinics and are we educated in public schools at a young age about sex (and STDs, pregnancy, etc.) but most girls I know are on birth control if not for preventative reasons than at least to regulate their period. Not to mention that you can only really get pregnant within a 5-7 day period MAX per month (so you're safe from pregnancy over 3/4 the time you have unprotected sex... and most women know when they're ovulating).

Keyword: Public school
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 6:48:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 4:34:36 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I respectfully suggest that your position is a straw man. He never said that bad character was irrelevant; he said cheating on his wife was irrelevant. Maybe fidelity isn't one of the qualities he perhaps values in a politician. To Tom and QuailMan - Having an affair makes you a bad husband - not necessarily a bad politician. Lying about how you're spending people's money and your campaign funds DOES however make you a bad politician, explicitly. One's relationship with their spouse does not necessarily reflect on the relationship they have with the public. In this case, Edwards both lied to his wife and the public... which is bad, and JBlake agreed. But he's not a bad candidate for cheating on his wife, imo.

I guess I don't have to respond, theLwerd answered as I would have.

Zadam, your post asks too much of politicians. You seem to be demanding complete honesty from politicians. You want only politicians who never lie? Good luck finding ANYONE who never lies.

The important question to me is policy. What are his policy goals? Do they line up with my own? How effective is he at achieving these policy goals?

How much of a family man he is; how well he treats his wife and family; or whether he is a "good person" are of no concern to me. Misusing campaign funds is different - it is corruption. Supporters gave him money to advance the policy goals that he expressed, not to support his mistress. Like theLwerd said, the latter is an example of his relationship with the public (which does matter to me) while the former is his private life (which is not my concern).
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 7:02:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
theLwerd and JBlake seem to missing the point. Edwards lied about something very grave and something very serious. He cheated on his wife while she had cancer. This clearly makes Edwards a dishonest person. Moreover, he had no problems of possibly becoming Obama's VP -- he welcomed it. Just imagine what this would make the US look like if Edwards became VP.

He's probably more progressive than Obama as well, so of course he would be an atrocious President :)
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 7:18:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I fully understand your point, Nags. I just don't happen to agree with it.

Everyone lies. People lie, it happens. It is not their honesty on private matters that concerns me. How they treat their family does not concern me either.

Think of it this way. Pretend, for a moment, that you are in charge with hiring and firing CEOs for companies in which you own stock. If you found out that a CEO whose policies were positive for the company had cheated on his wife (who had cancer) and then lied about it, would you fire him? If a CEO's policies made lots of money for you, would you fire him because he cheated on his dying wife and lied about it?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 8:51:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 7:02:05 PM, Nags wrote:
theLwerd and JBlake seem to missing the point. Edwards lied about something very grave and something very serious. He cheated on his wife while she had cancer. This clearly makes Edwards a dishonest person. Moreover, he had no problems of possibly becoming Obama's VP -- he welcomed it. Just imagine what this would make the US look like if Edwards became VP.

He's probably more progressive than Obama as well, so of course he would be an atrocious President :)

No, I'm not missing your point. I just don't give a crap about your point. I agree with JBlake on this one. What someone does in their personal life is up to them. What someone does with my money is another. If he wants to cheat on his sick wife, it demonstrates his lack of consideration and respect for his marriage. It doesn't reflect on his ability to implement policies and effectively lead a nation. You can't assume that just because one cheated on their wife that they're a bad leader. I've done plenty of things in my personal life that I regret, but those mistakes don't define me as a person let alone my work ethic or abilities. What Edwards did regarding his dishonesty to the public was obscene; what he did to his wife was a shame but really not my or your business. You can judge him all you'd like, but it still doesn't prove your point. Besides, after George W. Bush I'm not really sure there's much more we can do to make the U.S. look bad... and he wasn't progressive.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 8:53:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 7:18:17 PM, JBlake wrote:

If you found out that a CEO whose policies were positive for the company had cheated on his wife (who had cancer) and then lied about it, would you fire him? If a CEO's policies made lots of money for you, would you fire him because he cheated on his dying wife and lied about it?

Haha let's see his capitalist butt answer this one :)

You can't say that the guy's dishonesty leads you to believe he'd treat his employer the same way. That'd be a heck of a stretch with no basis or proof.
President of DDO
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 5:59:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
@ JBlake and theLwerd

Your analogy fails because you seem to misunderstand the office of the President, or any elected office for that matter. Number one, you must be electable to be President. To be elected, people must like you. People don't like John Edwards, and would never elect him. Number two, let's say for instance he got elected before this affair came out. He would immediately lose respect from both the people and the Congress. Public approval would drop drastically, which hinders the ability of the President to develop proper policies. Any family crisis affects the ability of a person to function, but a crisis which is heard nationwide that makes massive amounts of people to hate said person, then said person most likely won't have a right mind. Congress wouldn't trust the President to do jack sh1t. Some would call for his resignation, and I would expect letters of disapproval from just about everyone. Third, America's image abroad would be destroyed. As much as you deny it, any public office, especially that of the President, demands massive respect and honor. The President should be a morally upright person, because he is the one person who represents America at-large. Foreign leaders and foreign peoples would be disgusted, which would hurt the ability of the US to make treaties and have any talks whatsoever in the area of foreign policy. Trust is absolutely destroyed. The only function of a CEO is make profit, the POTUS has many more functions-- as I mentioned above.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 6:07:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/2/2010 8:24:58 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/2/2010 8:18:36 PM, Nags wrote:
No, John Edwards was a man who constantly sought out younger women at bars and other social settings. Sure, the woman consented, but John was the man on the prowl. I'm going to agree with Claire McCaskill on this one: "I think he's disgusting. I don't think the guy has a soul."

Well, he did put the rightful blame on John calling him a dim bulb. I agree, but I think a woman of her stature knows damn well the possibility she has of getting pregnant and when. That was planned. He was dumb enough to take the chance.

Actually, because sperm can survive in the female body for up to 7 days, the window is actually about 9 - 11 days (so about 2/3). But even then, most women are not having sex at totally random times (often less on their period and more often when ovulating), but playing at total randomness. Birth control is 99% effective so the odds of getting pregnant at any one instance are about 1/300, pretty good odds for a single individual, however on a grand scale, it is not perfect protection.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 6:16:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 7:18:17 PM, JBlake wrote:
I fully understand your point, Nags. I just don't happen to agree with it.

Everyone lies. People lie, it happens. It is not their honesty on private matters that concerns me. How they treat their family does not concern me either.

Think of it this way. Pretend, for a moment, that you are in charge with hiring and firing CEOs for companies in which you own stock. If you found out that a CEO whose policies were positive for the company had cheated on his wife (who had cancer) and then lied about it, would you fire him? If a CEO's policies made lots of money for you, would you fire him because he cheated on his dying wife and lied about it?

I know this isn't directed at me, but I'd like to answer it. First, I don't believe that 1 lie = another lie. Lies of different importance vary what we think of them. I don't care if a president (or any politician, or any one for that matter) lies about what they ate for dinner. I DO care about whether a president lies to the people in an attempt to drag us into a war (or some other major issue). While lying about cheating is not directly related to governing, it does say how he treats info that he doesn't want to get out, which could easily lead into governing policies.

As for the CEO, I would not say he should directly be fired, but that his honesty and integrity are now in question and an audit of his work in the company should be done. If he has been found to lie to the stock holders, then he should be fired.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 6:19:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 5:59:41 PM, Nags wrote:
@ JBlake and theLwerd

Your analogy fails because you seem to misunderstand the office of the President, or any elected office for that matter. Number one, you must be electable to be President. To be elected, people must like you. People don't like John Edwards, and would never elect him. Number two, let's say for instance he got elected before this affair came out. He would immediately lose respect from both the people and the Congress. Public approval would drop drastically, which hinders the ability of the President to develop proper policies. Any family crisis affects the ability of a person to function, but a crisis which is heard nationwide that makes massive amounts of people to hate said person, then said person most likely won't have a right mind. Congress wouldn't trust the President to do jack sh1t. Some would call for his resignation, and I would expect letters of disapproval from just about everyone. Third, America's image abroad would be destroyed. As much as you deny it, any public office, especially that of the President, demands massive respect and honor. The President should be a morally upright person, because he is the one person who represents America at-large. Foreign leaders and foreign peoples would be disgusted, which would hurt the ability of the US to make treaties and have any talks whatsoever in the area of foreign policy. Trust is absolutely destroyed. The only function of a CEO is make profit, the POTUS has many more functions-- as I mentioned above.

A perfect example of this (on a smaller scale) is Mayor Sam Adams in Portland Oregon.

http://www.oregonlive.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Thebeets
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 6:24:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 6:48:38 PM, JBlake wrote:
askbob, your post asks too much of politicians. You seem to be demanding complete honesty from politicians. You want only politicians who never lie? Good luck finding ANYONE who never lies.

There's a difference between white lies and serious lies. Cheating on your wife is the latter.

Sorry it lets me know a couple things:

1. He has poor character

2. He can tell the same lie for an extended period of time

I don't ask for much out of politicians. But someone with honesty and good character will always make a better politician than a deceitful politician anyday.

I think its very possible to have good politicians who don't lie. Everyone's acting like we have a small base to recruit from. We have the entire US. Its a big country. It's pathetic that we can accept something like this as status quo and just be like "oh well all politicians lie".

Screw that, I say crack down and demand something better.

The same would be like finding out that a politician embezzeled tax dollars and say "oh well all politicians do that" Its a slippery slope that just leads to the corruption of politics. If we even had half the politicians in congress who were being politicians as a service for the country and were honest we'd have much better country.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 6:27:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No Nags, the analogy does not fail.

I was explaining my position. I personally do not care whether or not a politician has an affair and then lies about it. Your position now is at because other people care, I should care. I do not. Furthermore, it is my position that other people should not care either. If no one cared whether a politician had an affair, then he would not have to lie about it. If no one cared whether a politician had an affair and then lied about it, then he would not have difficulty governing. Do you understand?

On a personal level, I do not care about fidelity in public figures. On a larger scale, I am saying that no one should care about a politician's fidelity. If no one cared then politicians would not have to lie, or worry about losing governing effectiveness.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 6:27:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 6:07:51 PM, OreEle wrote:

Actually, because sperm can survive in the female body for up to 7 days, the window is actually about 9 - 11 days (so about 2/3). But even then, most women are not having sex at totally random times (often less on their period and more often when ovulating), but playing at total randomness. Birth control is 99% effective so the odds of getting pregnant at any one instance are about 1/300, pretty good odds for a single individual, however on a grand scale, it is not perfect protection.

Actually, according to americanpregnancy.org, an egg is available to be fertilized for only about 12-24 hours during ovulation. But since sperm can live in the body for 3-5 days and then the egg is available for one day, your most fertile time is considered to be about 5-7 days [1]. 5-7 days is LESS THAN 1/4 MONTH lol so I have no idea where you got the number 2/3 from (as a time to get pregnant). At best a woman can get pregnant 1/3 of the month, and even that's kind of a stretch. Anyway even with odds of 1/300 getting pregnant while on the pill, that means statistically speaking they could have had sex 299 times and not gotten pregnant lol... damn. Not to mention that they would have had to have sex 300 times within ONE WEEK SPAN (that you could even get pregnant) for that statistic to even matter. The point is, I stand by my point that getting pregnant is relatively difficult if you try to avoid it.

[1] http://www.americanpregnancy.org...
President of DDO
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 6:29:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 6:24:06 PM, Thebeets wrote:
The same would be like finding out that a politician embezzeled tax dollars and say "oh well all politicians do that" Its a slippery slope that just leads to the corruption of politics. If we even had half the politicians in congress who were being politicians as a service for the country and were honest we'd have much better country.

Haha... No.

It is not like tat at all. One is about honesty about a private life, the other is about corruption and illegal activity.
Thebeets
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 6:31:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 6:27:23 PM, JBlake wrote:
No Nags, the analogy does not fail.

JBlake you're making giant assumption that ones homelife has no effect on their professional life. This is where your logic is failing.
Thebeets
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 6:33:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 6:29:17 PM, JBlake wrote:
Haha... No.

It is not like tat at all. One is about honesty about a private life, the other is about corruption and illegal activity.

You're assuming that nothing carries over from the private life to the professional life.

People that cheat on their spouses don't suddenly become honest good people upon putting on the suit. It carries over.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 6:36:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 5:59:41 PM, Nags wrote:
@ JBlake and theLwerd

Your analogy fails because you seem to misunderstand the office of the President, or any elected office for that matter. Number one, you must be electable to be President. To be elected, people must like you. People don't like John Edwards, and would never elect him.

How do I "misunderstand" the office of the president? There's nothing to misunderstand -- the duties are written down somewhere lol. There is no rule that says the people have to like the president. Proof was GWB's 70+ percent disapproval rating. People don't HAVE to like you to elect you... people just tend to elect people they like. But maybe if more people started voting for the right reasons (the best person for the job and the people instead of who they "like" or not) then we'd have more effective and efficient leaders.

Number two, let's say for instance he got elected before this affair came out. He would immediately lose respect from both the people and the Congress. Public approval would drop drastically, which hinders the ability of the President to develop proper policies.

Fortunately I can make my point easily because THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED with former president Bill Clinton. Check the facts, Nags, not your opinion. Clinton left office with an approval rating at 66%, the highest end of office rating... and his approval rating rose during the Lewinsky scandal [1] [2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't feel like looking up non-Wiki stats but they're there.

Any family crisis affects the ability of a person to function, but a crisis which is heard nationwide that makes massive amounts of people to hate said person, then said person most likely won't have a right mind. Congress wouldn't trust the President to do jack sh1t. Some would call for his resignation, and I would expect letters of disapproval from just about everyone.

Blah blah blah. Completely irrelevant. All of this is negated by me pointing out that this didn't happen with Clinton. People still love and glorify Clinton! Well, not Conservatives, obviously, but they never did. You're assuming that people actually give a sh-t just because you do. Yes, Clinton was impeached but in the end he wasn't "hated" on a mass scale and it barely affected his politics and policy.

Third, America's image abroad would be destroyed. As much as you deny it, any public office, especially that of the President, demands massive respect and honor. The President should be a morally upright person, because he is the one person who represents America at-large. Foreign leaders and foreign peoples would be disgusted, which would hurt the ability of the US to make treaties and have any talks whatsoever in the area of foreign policy. Trust is absolutely destroyed.

I already addressed this. I said that America's image can be destroyed in a lot of ways (and already was) with things like the wars in the middle east, our debt, our culture (rude), etc. Once again, THIS ALREADY HAPPENED TO US (Clinton) and the U.S. survived. The nice Christian guy who came AFTER Clinton is what ruined our reputation far worse!

The only function of a CEO is make profit, the POTUS has many more functions-- as I mentioned above.

Actually a CEO has a lot of functions aside from profit, including leadership, decision making, etc. You yourself admitted that one's abilities to work properly after having a personal crisis, so saying it wouldn't apply to CEOs is hypocritical... as just one rebuttal to this, heh.
President of DDO
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 6:37:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 6:27:23 PM, JBlake wrote:
No Nags, the analogy does not fail.

I made a pretty detailed argument, now let's hear this...

I was explaining my position. I personally do not care whether or not a politician has an affair and then lies about it.

I personally do not care what you care.

Your position now is at because other people care, I should care.

No, that's not my position. My position is that people do care, which is why this Edwards affair matters. Your opinion doesn't change this.

I do not. Furthermore, it is my position that other people should not care either. If no one cared whether a politician had an affair, then he would not have to lie about it. If no one cared whether a politician had an affair and then lied about it, then he would not have difficulty governing. Do you understand?

Of course I understand. However, you're not in a position to say what people should and should not care about. People do care. Because people realize exactly what I said the implications are in my previous post. My position is that everyone should conform to my position as well, but that's entirely irrelevant.

On a personal level, I do not care about fidelity in public figures. On a larger scale, I am saying that no one should care about a politician's fidelity. If no one cared then politicians would not have to lie, or worry about losing governing effectiveness.

Lol. "Politicians would not have to lie." That's almost funny. That's usually in their job description. I personally don't care what people do in their private life either. Honestly, I don't care if Barack Obama spends his weekend nights with prostitutes. Whatever. However, if a politician lies about what they are doing, that's where I draw the line. The politician understood before he or she ran for office that their life would be examined under a microscope. They are now in public life, and as such- their personal matters are now public.