this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
589 points (97.4% liked)

politics

18931 readers
3256 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes yes, you're on the record as being against marital infidelity. Such a brave and controversial stance 🙄

Let me repeat one last time: his private affairs (double entendre not intended) are not relevant to his public life and as such is none of our business until they break relevant laws and/or otherwise influence the job.

Or, to put it another way: as far as anything that actually matters that anyone not directly affected is concerned, he could have done the same things while not married or otherwise in a relationship and it would have been exactly as bad.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No it would have been better, because the point was he cheated on his significant other, betraying the trust of the one person who should be able to trust him more than anyone else. If he can do that to those closest to him, how can we trust him with the fate of faceless millions? This is nothing to do with "puritanism" and everything to do with his character

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

the point was he cheated on his significant other

It most certainly was not. The point was that he defrauded the people in order to gain power.

If he can do that to those closest to him, how can we trust him with the fate of faceless millions

Fun fact: millions of imperfect people who behave badly, sometimes even cruelly, towards those closest to them are excellent public servants. Trump never was, of course, but that's nothing to do with his private life.

Professional and personal lives are separate things and as such, one doesn't automatically reflect the other.

This is nothing to do with "puritanism" and everything to do with his character

Maybe not puritanism, but definitely sensationalism and conflating separate parts of the garbage human that he is.

Would I prefer that all politicians are both excellent public servants and kind and considerate in their private lives? Of course!

Do I believe that failing the latter makes the former impossible? Hell no! That's just not how people work!