Leaderboard

This is my attempt at complete balance, and fairness. I think the best thing about Trump's election was that it is now feasible for a non politician, who isn't a General (Washington, Grant, Ike) to be President. We have had way too many "professional politicians". So, Trump breaking that mold is great for the country in that sense. However, is he the right non Politician? There are tons of people I would suggest who would be much, much better for the job. Warren Buffet is one person that comes to mind. Jesse Ventura...don't laugh, yes, THAT Jesse Ventura comes to mind. Colin Powell would have been good, Iraq war support notwithstanding. Trump simply lacks any moral and ethical standard for the job. His supporters have lowered or eliminated any standard for him. Standards that are hypocritically applied to everyone else. Standards that were applied to Obama, rightfully so, but removed for Trump. Things work both ways. If or when we ever get the left version of Trump, and what that entails, we will have deserved whatever havoc he brings to the office, because we allowed his or hers counterpart on the right. Putting a person above morality, the law, the Constitution and America itself, is basically conceding the Republic is a Republic in name only and not in practice. I supported Obama twice. The second time weakly as a lesser of two evils between him and Romney. Any illusion I was under he would be a great president was gone by that time. I would have supported his removal for a few things he conducted such as the extrajudicial killing of American citizens abroad via drone strikes or special ops operations. As much as we want to see American citizens conspiring with known terrorists killed, they were denied their constitutional rights. As much as it angered me that Bill Clinton didn't have bin Laden kidnapped and brought to America during his presidency when a foreign leader (can't recall, but I think it was Somalia) gave him that opportunity, Clinton, and I say this grudgingly knowing the havoc bin Laden caused in 9/11 but Clinton was right in that he could not legally do it and would have not been able to convict him in a fair trial due to a lack of evidence, witnesses and having to compromise top secret information. It's how a democracy and a Republic works. You have to trust that it in the end, it will all be for the long term good if we adhere to the laws we all agreed to follow. Violate those laws wantonly and you give any future despot the precedence to violate your progeny's rights. I actually agree with Trump about certain aspects of the so-called 'deep state" (not all but some). I actually agreed with him during thhe election that the economy and jobs numbers and the stats were all "cooked" numbers. I think this is one of the reasons he was voted in. He didn't continue the lie that both sides were using. However, e is simply the wrong man for the job. Not even close to being the right man if the known history of him is anything to go by. His conduct as President proved it. This is not a post about Trump per se but the abdication of moral standards. When that democratic woman called him a 'MFer', that was the standard that Trump himself lowered the rhetoric to be. Had she said that sans Trump, the Dems would have censured her for the lack of respect to the office. He really had no cause to criticize with his own name calling. One can be brash and even a bit "rough" as President. I think there is room for that. A slight lack of perceived dignity. Johnson wasn't the most dignified person. He was a Texas good ol boy who used corrupt small town politics and applied to the Speaker of the House when he was speaker and continued a certain lack of civility as President at times. Nixon used the term MF liberally in private. FDR was said to use language not consistent with his patrician background. The American people will make allowances for a certain coarseness IF it's from a person who is morally and ethically sound. Nixon knew about the vote fraud in the 1960 election but for the better good of the nation, he didn't challenge it. Johnson had proof the same Nixon talked the South Vietnam leader into rejecting a peace deal for an "October surprise" in 1968 that would give a boost to the Democratic challenger but didn't do anything about it because it would make the people not trust in the democracy. Nixon in '60 and Johnson in '68 both took losses for what they perceived as the greater good for the Republic. Obama could have rightfully make public Trump''s campaign connection to Russia and hand the election to Hillary but in doing so it would always be questioned. Trump doesn't have an ounce of that in him. The electorate, at least portions of it, is way too short sighted and way too married to identity politics. This is in no directed at Cav. I am not including you in that. It's just a general statement. There are some people who support Trump in earnest. I just believe there are too many who do but accept clear violations of tradition and ethics.