From The Swash Zone:
Now, the guy getting blackmailed by Russia says it’s all a lie. And the country doing the blackmailing says it’s all a lie. Of course, the intelligence report says otherwise, but it’s become obvious that Donald Trump doesn’t use intelligence.
I feel I should point out that there’s nothing in the Constitution requiring a compromised president to step down: I mean, a man with principles would, but I think we’ve established pretty clearly that the GOP didn’t elect one of those.
Think about it for a second: if Donald Trump steps down in the face of these golden shower allegations, his brand is dead. He’s spent his entire life selling himself. Building up his name as a symbol of wealth and privilege. And if he just admits it’s true, he just pisses all that away.
Wait a minute! I thought that all of you leftists taught us during Bill Clinton’s administration that a person’s private sexual life should not be a factor in presidential politics! Why has that changed now?
That said, some of the statements from the author in this were rather clever and humorous.
I care about politicians’ sexual lives if their behavior (1) clashes with their stated values or with the stated values of their supporters, (2) interferes with their work in office, or (3) is criminal or immoral, e.g. rape. I don’t have any reason to think that this particular behavior would affect Trump’s ability to do the job (except, perhaps, if it affects how others interact with him) and I won’t assume that the women in question were forced to do this, so concerns 2 and 3 don’t apply here. However, if this story is true, then the ever-self-righteous, religious Republicans should be swift to condemn him for failing to live up to the standards that they insist others meet.
Of course, that time has passed. We knew long before the election that Trump is far from a poster boy for conservative evangelicalism, yet still such people supported him instead of their other options in the primaries and still many such people condemn Democrats for similar or milder, often simply imagined sexual deviancy. I just wish that Republican politicians and voters would acknowledge the inconsistency and finally drop the holier-than-thou act, which everyone else has known to be a sham all along.
Seldom Balanced, you can say that again. but “Usually fair”?
I get a skewed notion, reading your blog.
This, for example, opens the eyes.
Thank you for your comment and the link, Vincent.
I’m struggling to get the point you make with that link. Did I miss some mention of FairAndUNbalanced.com by Glenn Greenwald? Do we owe him a response?
Perhaps clarity would be better served if you would expand on your comment?
I confess that I do not have an deep and informed opinion of Mr. Greenwald. I do not recall hearing anything of him prior to the assistance he was said to have provided to Edward Snowden. As Glenn made the rounds of news interviews, I took his defense of Mr. Snowden to be rigid, unreasoning, and, at times, unnecessarily surly.
Vincent, we do not pretend a balanced approach. For example, the arc of my bias tends toward disapproval of the endangering of national security. I don’t much care for those of any political persuasion who endanger the brave souls, often ordinary citizens, who put themselves in harms way to keep murderous tragedy from happening.
We do, however, solicit contrasting views.
I completely agree with you on the matter of national security, and would never want to defend Mr Snowden myself. As to the point I was trying to make with that link . . . I’d sooner let it drop, I was hasty. The old Blogger, for all its faults, allowed you to delete your own comments. There was a point—but I’m breaking my own rule, that I shouldn’t poke my nose in business I know nothing about. Nor do I want, as your guest, to enter into disputations. Sorry!