Donald Trump

FSSL said:
And yet, Trump accomplished so much good with his policies. No other conservative came close.

We had a "righteous" leader and see what his policies did?
Click to expand...
Honest question, what policies are you talking about? Minus closing the boarder bc he did do that and that’s a good thing.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
And yet his policies led to economic and military disasters.
Click to expand...

A bad president with bad policies, but a decent person.

(Apropos to this thread title and current events, apparently the same could be said of Rob Reiner--ignoring his obvious Trump Derangement Syndrome, he seemed more like an old-school liberal than a modern leftist. James Woods wrote a very nice post the other about their friendship, in spite of their differences.)
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
The question was about the morality of a president, not the efficacy of his economic and foreign affairs policies.
Click to expand...
Trump isn’t any better on economy and foreign policy. Well, maybe not as bad on economy but our economy is in the dirt for sure.
 
Bruh said:
Trump isn’t any better on economy and foreign policy. Well, maybe not as bad on economy but our economy is in the dirt for sure.
Click to expand...
Carter inherited a bucket of crap from Gerald Ford—the only truly non-elected president in history. Inflation and stagflation were high, and coming on the failure of the rule of law via Nixon, American morale wasn’t much better. Unfortunately, Carter wasn’t able to turn the tide in his four years, but he certainly didn’t start the hot mess. Of course, this narrative doesn’t fit well with the Reagan lovers and diehard conservatives, so you’ll hear the name of Carter often, but nearly never the name of Ford. https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdo... Gerald,was to create jobs for the unemployed.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
The question was about the morality of a president, not the efficacy of his economic and foreign affairs policies.
Click to expand...

Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
My point is that the personal morality of the candidate does not translate into successful policy. Policy matters.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
My point is that the personal morality of the candidate does not translate into successful policy. Policy matters.
Click to expand...
That’s rather obvious in itself. I just think it’s strange how you are incapable of giving the guy credit for being a moral guy, so you immediately pivot to policy failures when it’s not germane to the conversation.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
That’s rather obvious in itself. I just think it’s strange how you are incapable of giving the guy credit for being a moral guy, so you immediately pivot to policy failures when it’s not germane to the conversation.
Click to expand...

You are a tad dense. I was not minimizing his moral standing at all.
My point is one that has been a part of an ongoing debate here about personal morality in candidates vs their political positions/policies.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
You are a tad dense. I was not minimizing his moral standing at all.
My point is one that has been a part of an ongoing debate here about personal morality in candidates vs their political positions/policies.
Click to expand...
And as I understand your position, the personal morality of any candidate is irrelevant as long as they have the correct policies. Which would be by definition minimizing their moral standing.

BTW I just reread the first twenty posts of this thread. Interesting to review it now. Essentially it was me making an observation followed by a lot of "but policies" replies. So yes, the primary train of reasoning has been that policies are more important than morality. Pragmatism at its worst.
 
subllibrm said:
And as I understand your position, the personal morality of any candidate is irrelevant as long as they have the correct policies. Which would be by definition minimizing their moral standing.
Click to expand...

How do you glean that morality is completely irrelevant to his calculus?
subllibrm said:
BTW I just reread the first twenty posts of this thread. Interesting to review it now. Essentially it was me making an observation followed by a lot of "but policies" replies. So yes, the primary train of reasoning has been that policies are more important than morality. Pragmatism at its worst.
Click to expand...
And I will defer back in those early posts to #55 where I asked….

“In what respect would you apply this quote to the FFF constituency?

For instance, do you believe that the group as a whole completely ignores Trump's character flaws? Or would it be more accurate to say that they don't elevate the value the president's personal moral character (as Carter, Pence, etc) as much as they value having a force in the White House that effectively creates policy that resonates with their strategic political platform?”
 

ALAYMAN said:
How do you glean that morality is completely irrelevant to his calculus?

And I will defer back in those early posts to #55 where I asked….

“In what respect would you apply this quote to the FFF constituency?

For instance, do you believe that the group as a whole completely ignores Trump's character flaws? Or would it be more accurate to say that they don't elevate the value the president's personal moral character (as Carter, Pence, etc) as much as they value having a force in the White House that effectively creates policy that resonates with their strategic political platform?”
Click to expand...
Completely ignores? Of course not. Minimize and rationalize, yes.

So your second question articulates my answer to your first.
 
ALAYMAN said:
How do you glean that morality is completely irrelevant to his calculus?
Click to expand...
You added the word completely.

It is possible that morality is part of the calculus. But when the conclusion consistently puts policy ahead of morality, morality is relegated to a position of irrelevance.
 
subllibrm said:
And as I understand your position, the personal morality of any candidate is irrelevant as long as they have the correct policies. Which would be by definition minimizing their moral standing.

BTW I just reread the first twenty posts of this thread. Interesting to review it now. Essentially it was me making an observation followed by a lot of "but policies" replies. So yes, the primary train of reasoning has been that policies are more important than morality. Pragmatism at its worst.
Click to expand...
No it’s not minimizing their moral standards. And their moral standard to you and their personal moral stand to me might differ.

If you’re for abortion that’s a moral standard and translates to policy.
If you’re pro trans that’s a moral standard.

Unless you have that super secret moral candidate who is perfect in every way…you ultimately decide which candidate is the lesser evil.

But your moral superiority gives you the right to call my choice pragmatic. Got hypocrisy?
 
Last edited:
subllibrm said:
You added the word completely.

It is possible that morality is part of the calculus. But when the conclusion consistently puts policy ahead of morality, morality is relegated to a position of irrelevance.
Click to expand...

Not true!
Hallelujah
 
subllibrm said:
You added the word completely.

It is possible that morality is part of the calculus. But when the conclusion consistently puts policy ahead of morality, morality is relegated to a position of irrelevance.
Click to expand...
so... lives being saved by trumps policys... wars being stopped and prevented.... abortions reduced with the hope of completely banning them in the future..... city streets being made safer.... children being spared the trauma of sexual mutilation at the hands of left wing frankenstienish doctors..... ... - none of that matters to you if the presidents words cause you some personal discomfort?... .....

and whine all you want that your views are "misrepresented"... but from all you say it seems obvious to me that getting a warm fuzzy feeling from flowery speech and a pleasing tone - is more important to you than having a president willing to take appropriate action that saves lives.. and protects the safety and freedoms of law abiding americans..... a personal "principle" that results in the death of american marines and the sexual mutilation of children is somehow "holy" or "moral".... but a "pragmatic" measured approach that saves innocent lives is evil and immoral?...🤨..

you are the worse kind of hypocrit... a putrid soul pretending to be pious - with a moral compass that;s not only broken but burned.... ..you criticize us and tout yourself as valuing principle over pragmatism but your "principle" is nothing more than a self centered preference that serves you personally and nothing else.. .... ....but take heart - you are not alone.. .. your allies on this issue chiming in to back you up are no different....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top