Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Maurile Tremblay

Conway on Trump

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I’m sure making a deal with the devil will do wonders for Christianity 

And that's exactly the response from a lot of Christians I know and respect.

I have a friend who's a very respected pastor and continually balances the "stay out of politics" with "shepherd your people" and it's killing him. 

He looks at some of the Evangelical leader over the top support with huge distress. 

He's worried, as am I, about that exact thing @Ilov80s

  • Like 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I know I'm in the minority on this and I don't want to turn this into a "Joe defends his Trump voting friends" thing. But I don't see it like this. For the majority of my friends who voted for Trump (and a great many voted for him), in my opinion they see him way more as the uncomfortable way to get what they want. Primarily, a conservative Supreme Court. This is far and away the prime answer I received when I'd ask "Why Trump?". Second would be economic policies they see as favorable to them with lower taxes and such. I don't think anyone I know who votes for Trump thinks he's smart. They see him more like a Tony Soprano guy that'll get done what they want. 

Now to be clear, I'm not saying there aren't all kinds of problems with thinking like that. I'm just saying in my experience, I don't see anyone seeing it like you do with the Trump voters thinking he's smart.

Your experiences seem similar to mine.  I keep digging though.  On this particular thought have you ever pointed out to them that ANY GOP Presidential option of the time would have gotten them the things they have today?  Curious what their response was/would be.  There are exactly ZERO unique positions he holds that I know of outside his position on immigration, so the question still remains "Why Trump?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, adonis said:

Do you make a distinction between Trump supporter and Trump voter?

We all should.....that's my hope anyway.  I know plenty who voted for him who won't do it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Your experiences seem similar to mine.  I keep digging though.  On this particular thought have you ever pointed out to them that ANY GOP Presidential option of the time would have gotten them the things they have today?  Curious what their response was/would be.  There are exactly ZERO unique positions he holds that I know of outside his position on immigration, so the question still remains "Why Trump?"

Thanks @The Commish  I don't think many (or any) of my friends supported Trump in the Primaries. 

That's one of the things that bums me out as well in how the narrative is told. Trump won Tennessee so the story becomes all my Trump voting friends are MAGA rally wild people. When that's not remotely true. 

The reality is my friend and Republican Governor Bill Haslam called for Trump to drop out of the race when the "grab them" tapes were released. 

Once it got to Trump vs Clinton, that was when their answer was what I talked about above with Supreme Court appointments and such being the major reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks @The Commish  I don't think many (or any) of my friends supported Trump in the Primaries. 

That's one of the things that bums me out as well in how the narrative is told. Trump won Tennessee so the story becomes all my Trump voting friends are MAGA rally wild people. When that's not remotely true. 

The reality is my friend and Republican Governor Bill Haslam called for Trump to drop out of the race when the "grab them" tapes were released. 

Once it got to Trump vs Clinton, that was when their answer was what I talked about above with Supreme Court appointments and such being the major reason. 

Have you asked if they will vote for him this time around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Have you asked if they will vote for him this time around?

We haven't talked about it much yet. 

It's honestly a pretty touchy topic. And I know these guys are wrestling hard with it. They're not dumb. They know fully well how the world sees them having voted for Trump once. Even in a conservative area like East Tennessee. 

I do think most won't be deciding until the Democrat option is determined. That's part of what had me talking about the centrist vs more left leaning Democratic candidate. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

We haven't talked about it much yet. 

It's honestly a pretty touchy topic. And I know these guys are wrestling hard with it. They're not dumb. They know fully well how the world sees them having voted for Trump once. Even in a conservative area like East Tennessee. 

I do think most won't be deciding until the Democrat option is determined. That's part of what had me talking about the centrist vs more left leaning Democratic candidate. 

 

You guys ever talk about the morality part of all this?

Sorry for all the question.... genuinely curious as i am walking a similar path and have been kind of cast to the side by people i never thought would do such a thing. 

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Commish said:

You guys ever talk about the morality part of all this?

Sorry for all the question.... genuinely curious as i am walking a similar path and have been kind of cast to the side by people i never thought would do such a thing. 

Absolutely. That's a big part of it. It's actually usually a pretty healthy discussion. 

I don't believe at all a Christian should vote for the "most Christian" candidate. Jimmy Carter seems to be a great example. Outstanding man and seems to be an exemplary Christian. He's not making many "best presidents" lists. 

It's a fascinating blend.

Are you saying people have cast you aside? For what reason? 

And don't apologize at all for the questions. This is the kind of dialog I love to see in a community like this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

Even in a conservative area like East Tennessee. 

 

 

Is West Tennessee more liberal? I thought the whole state was pretty conservative. Are there liberal pockets?
(I know so little about Tennessee, though I've learned something about Nashville watching the Ken Burns show, which is great BTW.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Is West Tennessee more liberal? I thought the whole state was pretty conservative. Are there liberal pockets?
(I know so little about Tennessee, though I've learned something about Nashville watching the Ken Burns show, which is great BTW.)

Yes. West Tennessee (Memphis) is generally more Democratic leaning. Middle Tennessee (Nashville) is more even and slightly more Republican leaning and East Tennessee (Knoxville) is more solidly Republican leaning.

Random Tennessee Trivia - The state feels divided geographically in the three distinct areas (flat farm land of West - Plateau of Middle and Smoky Mountains in the East) and that's where the three stars on our State Flag represent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Tennessee

Quote

The stars represent the three geographically and legally distinct "Grand Divisions" of Tennessee (i.e. East Tennessee, Middle Tennessee, and West Tennessee). The blue circle around the stars represents the unity of those grand divisions. The blue bar at the edge of the flag was just a design consideration. When asked about the blue bar, Colonel Reeves stated "The final blue bar relieves the sameness of the crimson field and prevents the flag from showing too much crimson when hanging limp." In October 1917, National Geographic erroneously reported the stars represented the state as the third to enter the Union after the original thirteen.[4]

 

  • Like 3
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Absolutely. That's a big part of it. It's actually usually a pretty healthy discussion. 

I don't believe at all a Christian should vote for the "most Christian" candidate. Jimmy Carter seems to be a great example. Outstanding man and seems to be an exemplary Christian. He's not making many "best presidents" lists. 

It's a fascinating blend.

Are you saying people have cast you aside? For what reason? 

And don't apologize at all for the questions. This is the kind of dialog I love to see in a community like this. 

Primarily for asking questions that shine light on the conflict between a person's personal desires vs what's best for everyone.  People :hophead: around here all the time about "people who don't talk to their family who voted for Trump", but it goes both ways.  I have "friends" who pretty much have nothing to do with me anymore because I won't make excuses for what I consider a morally bankrupt jerk.  

I'll be interested to see how this plays out for you during this next election.  Reality is, followers of Christ have a choice to make before we even get to policy differences.  I, personally, can't fathom anyone professing to put the health of the country ahead of their own personal desires voting for Trump.  I've never held this position until Trump either.  Every candidate prior to him, during my lifetime, has had some modicum of morality that one could point to in an effort to justify a vote.  Trump does not...this is as black and white as it gets in our political system.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Primarily for asking questions that shine light on the conflict between a person's personal desires vs what's best for everyone.  People :hophead: around here all the time about "people who don't talk to their family who voted for Trump", but it goes both ways.  I have "friends" who pretty much have nothing to do with me anymore because I won't make excuses for what I consider a morally bankrupt jerk.  

I'll be interested to see how this plays out for you during this next election.  Reality is, followers of Christ have a choice to make before we even get to policy differences.  I, personally, can't fathom anyone professing to put the health of the country ahead of their own personal desires voting for Trump.  I've never held this position until Trump either.  Every candidate prior to him, during my lifetime, has had some modicum of morality that one could point to in an effort to justify a vote.  Trump does not...this is as black and white as it gets in our political system.

Thanks. I do think there's some of the "we can disagree and still be friends". 

I don't deny it is a delicate walk though.

Before Trump, most of the differences with my friends would come down to tax stuff. They're mostly a wealthy bunch. I can remember a pretty pointed discussion we had centered around me telling them, "Maybe just backing the guy who'll cut your taxes the most isn't the best way to pick a candidate". 

It's touchy, but there have been a fair amount of good discussions. Some like "What about Trump is Christ like to you?" have been good. That's usually responded with "Hmmm Joe. Are we supposed to be electing the 'best Christian' or the best person for the job? I thought you said that wasn't necessarily the same thing?". That is a good discussion to have.

I do think a lot of it though is track record and context. These guys know me and love me. I love them. I know they have good hearts. They believe I have a good heart. When you can start with that foundation, disagreements are much easier to handle. 

 

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2019 at 12:04 PM, Joe Bryant said:

I know I'm in the minority on this and I don't want to turn this into a "Joe defends his Trump voting friends" thing. But I don't see it like this. For the majority of my friends who voted for Trump (and a great many voted for him), in my opinion they see him way more as the uncomfortable way to get what they want. Primarily, a conservative Supreme Court. This is far and away the prime answer I received when I'd ask "Why Trump?". Second would be economic policies they see as favorable to them with lower taxes and such. I don't think anyone I know who votes for Trump thinks he's smart. They see him more like a Tony Soprano guy that'll get done what they want. 

Now to be clear, I'm not saying there aren't all kinds of problems with thinking like that. I'm just saying in my experience, I don't see anyone seeing it like you do with the Trump voters thinking he's smart.

This reasoning kind of falls apart when any other Republican candidate who ran for the nomination in 2016 would have done those things - they would have appointed conservative justices and did everything they could to lower taxes. 

But this is the guy that the Republican voting base chose to represent them for the Presidency.  And I don't recall Trump's predominant talking points being about justices and taxes in the primaries. So that really can't be it, can it?

 

ETA: Sorry I was a page behind and Commish already covered this.

Edited by TheMagus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheMagus said:

This reasoning kind of falls apart when any other Republican candidate who ran for the nomination in 2016 would have done those things - they would have appointed conservative justices and did everything they could to lower taxes. 

But this is the guy that the Republican voting base chose to represent them for the Presidency.  And I don't recall Trump's predominant talking points being about justices and taxes in the primaries. So that really can't be it, can it?

Thanks. I don't think it falls apart. From what I said earlier:

Quote

 

Thanks @The Commish  I don't think many (or any) of my friends supported Trump in the Primaries. 

That's one of the things that bums me out as well in how the narrative is told. Trump won Tennessee so the story becomes all my Trump voting friends are MAGA rally wild people. When that's not remotely true. 

The reality is my friend and Republican Governor Bill Haslam called for Trump to drop out of the race when the "grab them" tapes were released. 

Once it got to Trump vs Clinton, that was when their answer was what I talked about above with Supreme Court appointments and such being the major reason. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. I do think there's some of the "we can disagree and still be friends". 

I don't deny it is a delicate walk though.

Before Trump, most of the differences with my friends would come down to tax stuff. They're mostly a wealthy bunch. I can remember a pretty pointed discussion we had centered around me telling them, "Maybe just backing the guy who'll cut your taxes the most isn't the best way to pick a candidate". 

It's touchy, but there have been a fair amount of good discussions. Some like "What about Trump is Christ like to you?" have been good. That's usually responded with "Hmmm Joe. Are we supposed to be electing the 'best Christian' or the best person for the job? I thought you said that wasn't necessarily the same thing?". That is a good discussion to have.

I do think a lot of it though is track record and context. These guys know me and love me. I love them. I know they have good hearts. They believe I have a good heart. When you can start with that foundation, disagreements are much easier to handle. 

 

I'd be interested in their response to "Forget religion....take it completely out.  Morality isn't unique to religion".  The best person for the job is the ultimate goal.  Their moral character (however you determine it) is the foundation.  It's wild to read your experiences with your friends.  You seem to have a good group of dudes.  I'll say that my group most similar to what you describe isn't part of the group that have turned on me.  We are still open and honest with each other.  Most of them voted Trump for the "meh....he can't be any worse than what we have now" or the "lets shake things up!!!" varieties.  To a man, every single one of them regret their decision.  They won't be voting for Trump this time around.  The only question to them is will they vote for the Dem candidate or third party.  They want someone who isn't an establishment type and who isn't going to go crazy with programs.  It's pretty much down to Mayor Pete and Klobuchar for them or they are voting third party.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s really hard for me to wrap my head around how someone can acknowledge how awful Trump is and still have voting for him again in play.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

It’s really hard for me to wrap my head around how someone can acknowledge how awful Trump is and still have voting for him again in play.

For many people they just can't believe that a Democrat *GASP* might actually do a better job/not be the antichrist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

It’s really hard for me to wrap my head around how someone can acknowledge how awful Trump is and still have voting for him again in play.

Feature of the two party system

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Feature of the two party system

Meh...yes and no. We'd have the same problem with 3 or 4 or 5 parties.

It's more of a feature of pure stubbornness and willful ignorance.*

*that is not a shot at any particular group or party.  If someone can't even entertain the idea of considering a candidate from another party they're lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, OrtonToOlsen said:

Meh...yes and no. We'd have the same problem with 3 or 4 or 5 parties.

It's more of a feature of pure stubbornness and willful ignorance.*

*that is not a shot at any particular group or party.  If someone can't even entertain the idea of considering a candidate from another party they're lazy.

This checks out. It’s hard for me to imagine voting for a Republican and I’m really lazy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, OrtonToOlsen said:

Meh...yes and no. We'd have the same problem with 3 or 4 or 5 parties.

It's more of a feature of pure stubbornness and willful ignorance.*

*that is not a shot at any particular group or party.  If someone can't even entertain the idea of considering a candidate from another party they're lazy.

Seems to me, those things begin to be minimized with choice though, no?  It's easy to be "anti group X" or "pro group Y"....if you're not one you're the other by default.  That's not the case if you have multiple groups.  There is no default other than the one you choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Seems to me, those things begin to be minimized with choice though, no?  It's easy to be "anti group X" or "pro group Y"....if you're not one you're the other by default.  That's not the case if you have multiple groups.  There is no default other than the one you choose.

Could be.

I also don't have a lot of faith in humans these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sure some percentage of Trump voters pulled the lever for him because of the Supreme Court vacancy, but since Trump’s strongest demographic is uneducated white males, I’m hesitant to believe it was a major factor.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

I’m sure some percentage of Trump voters pulled the lever for him because of the Supreme Court vacancy, but since Trump’s strongest demographic is uneducated white males, I’m hesitant to believe it was a major factor.  

"Economic anxiety" was given as a reason for that specific demographic's support I believe.

I also believe that that is mostly dog whistle for something else which I won't mention

Edited by msommer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. I do think there's some of the "we can disagree and still be friends". 

I don't deny it is a delicate walk though.

Before Trump, most of the differences with my friends would come down to tax stuff. They're mostly a wealthy bunch. I can remember a pretty pointed discussion we had centered around me telling them, "Maybe just backing the guy who'll cut your taxes the most isn't the best way to pick a candidate". 

It's touchy, but there have been a fair amount of good discussions. Some like "What about Trump is Christ like to you?" have been good. That's usually responded with "Hmmm Joe. Are we supposed to be electing the 'best Christian' or the best person for the job? I thought you said that wasn't necessarily the same thing?". That is a good discussion to have.

I do think a lot of it though is track record and context. These guys know me and love me. I love them. I know they have good hearts. They believe I have a good heart. When you can start with that foundation, disagreements are much easier to handle. 

 

The bold is where the Trump Presidency has been most damaging to me Joe.  While I’ve long been a vocal liberal on these boards, I’m also a product of a rural Republican upbringing, and I know good people can disagree rationally.  

At some point, the cruelty, bigotry, and racism has to matter.  Lots of folks who were kind and generous to me as a youth have been fervent supporters of Trump’s policies the past 3 years, and I’m having trouble continuing to give them a free pass.  Because in practice, what is having a “good heart” worth if it means ignoring blatantly obvious awfulness?  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, msommer said:

"Economic anxiety" was given as a reason for that specific demographic's support I believe.

I also believe that that is dog whistle for something else which I won't mention

Does it rhyme with "schmacism"?

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, OrtonToOlsen said:

Does it rhyme with "schmacism"?

schmaybe...

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Commish said:

I'd be interested in their response to "Forget religion....take it completely out.  Morality isn't unique to religion".  The best person for the job is the ultimate goal.  Their moral character (however you determine it) is the foundation.  It's wild to read your experiences with your friends.  You seem to have a good group of dudes.  I'll say that my group most similar to what you describe isn't part of the group that have turned on me.  We are still open and honest with each other.  Most of them voted Trump for the "meh....he can't be any worse than what we have now" or the "lets shake things up!!!" varieties.  To a man, every single one of them regret their decision.  They won't be voting for Trump this time around.  The only question to them is will they vote for the Dem candidate or third party.  They want someone who isn't an establishment type and who isn't going to go crazy with programs.  It's pretty much down to Mayor Pete and Klobuchar for them or they are voting third party.  

It really is an interesting thought exercise. I'd say you can take religion AND morality out of it. Say the future president has zero moral values. If he can get done what you want done, do you support him? Say you're a strong progressive and you know the presidential candidate is an awful human being. But he is effective and he can get universal health care done, get gun control done, and get immigration the way you want. Do you support him? 

I'd say it depends on what else comes with the deal? 

But it's an interesting thought exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

It really is an interesting thought exercise. I'd say you can take religion AND morality out of it. Say the future president has zero moral values. If he can get done what you want done, do you support him? Say you're a strong progressive and you know the presidential candidate is an awful human being. But he is effective and he can get universal health care done, get gun control done, and get immigration the way you want. Do you support him? 

I'd say it depends on what else comes with the deal? 

But it's an interesting thought exercise.

There you go.  You do that thought experiment and you see why people vote for (to use your examples) repealing the individual mandate, defending the 2nd amendment and border security.   It's kind of funny people pretend to assign much morality to politicians in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Say the future president has zero moral values. If he can get done what you want done, do you support him? Say you're a strong progressive and you know the presidential candidate is an awful human being. But he is effective and he can get universal health care done, get gun control done, and get immigration the way you want. Do you support him?

I don't think that's a hard question. The answer is: heck no!

Health care, taxes, Supreme Court seats, gun control, immigration -- none of that matters compared to preserving the integrity of our democratic systems and institutions, preserving the constitutional framework that holds us together, and avoiding nuclear war. A President who isn't crazy and wants to do the right thing is a thousand times more important than a President who agrees with me on debatable policy issues.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

I’m sure making a deal with the devil will do wonders for Christianity 

That's legal now? We need to fix that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don't think that's a hard question. The answer is: heck no!

Health care, taxes, Supreme Court seats, gun control, immigration -- none of that matters compared to preserving the integrity of our democratic systems and institutions, preserving the constitutional framework that holds us together, and avoiding nuclear war. A President who isn't crazy and wants to do the right thing is a thousand times more important than a President who agrees with me on debatable policy issues.

That's not the point I'm trying to make though. Or the thought exercise I'm talking about. How about: If you knew the potential president had no moral character but you'd definitely get preserving the integrity of our democratic systems and institutions, preserving the constitutional framework that holds us together, and avoiding nuclear war, would you support him/her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

But that's the same thing. If you knew the potential president had no moral character but you'd definitely get preserving the integrity of our democratic systems and institutions, preserving the constitutional framework that holds us together, and avoiding nuclear war, would you support him/her?

I don't think that question makes sense. Character and morality are the things that will cause a President to put country over party in order to uphold important norms, laws, and institutions.

A president without moral character cannot be counted on to put the public national (or global) interest ahead of his party's interest, or his own personal interest.

That's what moral character means.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how I think about it.

On the one hand, there are policy issues -- health care, immigration, gun control, tax reform, yadda yadda.

On the other hand, there are basic issues of integrity like: should the president corruptly trade public policy favors for his own personal gain?

Holding other things equal, I prefer a President who agrees with me on policy issues. That would be nice. But all of those issues are fairly complicated -- smart, well informed people can disagree about them in good faith. Which means there's a decent chance that a President who mostly agrees with me on policy issues will be wrong. There's a decent chance that a President who disagrees with me will be correct, or at least less wrong. So while I'd prefer a President whose policy views align with my own, it can't be a prohibitively decisive preference.

On the question of whether integrity is better than corruption, there is no real disagreement among smart, well informed people. That's an easy one. Integrity is better.

I'm a fan of getting the easy questions right. Emphasize the easy ones over the hard ones. (That's why you shouldn't draft a team defense in the first round of a fantasy draft. A star running back over a mediocre one is an easy decision. Any particular defense over another is kind of a crapshoot. Prioritize getting your way on the obvious calls rather than the crapshoots.)

So choosing between an ethically good President who disagrees with me on most policy issues or a corrupt President who agrees with me on most policy issues is an easy call. Give me the first one every time.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Here's how I think about it.

On the one hand, there are policy issues -- health care, immigration, gun control, tax reform, yadda yadda.

On the other hand, there are basic issues of integrity like: should the president corruptly trade public policy favors for his own personal gain?

Holding other things equal, I prefer a President who agrees with me on policy issues. That would be nice. But all of those issues are fairly complicated -- smart, well informed people can disagree about them in good faith. Which means there's a decent chance that a President who mostly agrees with me on policy issues will be wrong. There's a decent chance that a President who disagrees with me will be correct, or at least less wrong. So while I'd prefer a President whose policy views align with my own, it can't be a prohibitively decisive preference.

On the question of whether integrity is better than corruption, there is no real disagreement among smart, well informed people. That's an easy one. Integrity is better.

I'm a fan of getting the easy questions right. Emphasize the easy ones over the hard ones. (That's why you shouldn't draft a team defense in the first round of a fantasy draft. A star running back over a mediocre one is an easy decision. Any particular defense over another is kind of a crapshoot. Prioritize getting your way on the obvious calls rather than the crapshoots.)

So choosing between an ethically good President who disagrees with me on most policy issues or a corrupt President who agrees with me on most policy issues is an easy call. Give me the first one every time.

Amen and perfectly said. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don't think that question makes sense. Character and morality are the things that will cause a President to put country over party in order to uphold important norms, laws, and institutions.

A president without moral character cannot be counted on to put the public national (or global) interest ahead of his party's interest, or his own personal interest.

That's what moral character means.

Try it this way: If you could get the outcomes you wanted, whatever they were, would you support the president getting those outcomes if he had low moral character? He cheated on his wife, was mean to people, was arrogant or abrasive or the other things associated with low moral character. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course, in a perfect world, the goal is to have a person we think has the highest moral character AND can get all the things we desire for the country to have. 

But that's not reality. Especially for Republicans these days. So that's the dilemma they are wrestling with. At least that's how I'm observing it with my friends. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For conversation sake, how would people rate the moral character of Mike Pence? 

 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bryant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

Try it this way: If you could get the outcomes you wanted, whatever they were, would you support the president getting those outcomes if he had low moral character? He cheated on his wife, was mean to people, was arrogant or abrasive or the other things associated with low moral character. 

A few things with this:

A) if  my goals were religious based, of course not

B) Trump didn’t just cheat on his wife or say mean stuff. He’s a liar and a scam artist. The idea anyone can trust him is an incredible stretch.

Edited by Ilov80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ilov80s said:

A few things with this:

A) of my goals were religious based, of course not

B) Trump didn’t just cheat on his wife or say mean stuff. He’s a liar and a scam artist. The idea anyone can trust him is an incredible stretch.

Thanks. No religious factor unless that's something important to you.

And for liar and scam artist, that can be part of it too. 

Say, if you're a strong progressive, and the potential candidate you feel is a liar and a scam artist, BUT can get done all the things you'd love to see for the country, do you vote for him/her?

And I'm not saying the answer is yes. I'm just asking the question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And really where all this is going is back to is the age old "does the end justify the means?" question. 

It's been around a long time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Try it this way: If you could get the outcomes you wanted, whatever they were, would you support the president getting those outcomes if he had low moral character? He cheated on his wife, was mean to people, was arrogant or abrasive or the other things associated with low moral character. 

I don't care much about venereal peccadilloes or interpersonal abrasiveness if it doesn't keep someone from getting the job done. That's not the kind of moral character I had in mind for a politician. Some of the best football coaches may be jerks, and some of the best Presidents may be, too. That's fine. There are reports that Amy Klobuchar isn't always patient and gentle with her staffers. That reduces my support for her very little. (I also don't think Trump's serial sexual harassment, if we believe the reports, are anywhere near the top of the list of reasons to oppose him as a presidential candidate.)

The kind of moral character I'm talking about is not the very personal kind that affects relationships between spouses or co-workers. I'm talking about the kind of moral character that causes someone in an important job to take it seriously, work hard, and do her best to focus on the greater good rather than just her own private gain. Someone who isn't corrupt, can't be bribed, etc.

I think those two types of moral character are separable. It's the second kind that I find indispensable in a good presidential candidate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don't care much about venereal peccadilloes or interpersonal abrasiveness if it doesn't keep someone from getting the job done. That's not the kind of moral character I had in mind for a politician. Some of the best football coaches may be jerks, and some of the best Presidents may be, too. That's fine. There are reports that Amy Klobuchar isn't always patient and gentle with her staffers. That reduces my support for her very little.

The kind of moral character I'm talking about is not the very personal kind that affects relationships between spouses or co-workers. I'm talking about the kind of moral character that causes someone in an important job to take it seriously, work hard, and do her best to focus on the greater good rather than just her own private gain. Someone who isn't corrupt, can't be bribed, etc.

I think those two types of moral character are separable. It's the second kind that I find indispensable in a good presidential candidate.

No disagreement there. 

But I think we're talking around each other. I'll drop out here.

Bottom line, I think the thought exercise I had in mind comes down to the age old "does the end justify the means" thing. I think it's kind of interesting to think about. 

Y'all carry on without me. Random Shots should write itself but it doesn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

 

Say, if you're a strong progressive, and the potential candidate you feel is a liar and a scam artist, BUT can get done all the things you'd love to see for the country, do you vote for him/her?

And I'm not saying the answer is yes. I'm just asking the question. 

I would not.

 

9 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

And really where all this is going is back to is the age old "does the end justify the means?" question. 

It's been around a long time. 

Because I believe the means is equally as important as the end.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

For conversation sake, how would people rate the moral character of Mike Pence? 

 

 

 

hard to say, haven’t heard him talk much.  but whatever he had, he compromised it three years ago.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. No religious factor unless that's something important to you.

And for liar and scam artist, that can be part of it too. 

Say, if you're a strong progressive, and the potential candidate you feel is a liar and a scam artist, BUT can get done all the things you'd love to see for the country, do you vote for him/her?

And I'm not saying the answer is yes. I'm just asking the question. 

Sorry, I thought their conservatism was based on religious views like anti abortion and Christianity will be banned from public. I think that was another poster saying that though, my bad.

As for part 2, no. If you believe someone who has made a career out of lying and grifting, you are a mark. Even if they do accomplishment some of what you want, at what cost?

Edited by Ilov80s
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would your hire someone who you thought would give accurate fantasy predictions and increase memberships if you also knew he couldn’t be trusted, didn’t work well with others, was incredibly crass, unpredictable, will publicly mock anyone who disagrees with them,   had numerous accusations of sexual assault, and had a history of ripping off business partners and customers? I mean you wouldn’t hire this guy to be a cashier at Taco Bell but somehow we can justify him for President?

Edited by Ilov80s
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Would your hire someone who you thought would give accurate fantasy predictions and increase memberships if you also knew he couldn’t be trusted, didn’t work well with others, was incredibly crass, unpredictable, will publicly mock anyone who disagrees with them,   had numerous accusations of sexual assault, and had a history of ripping off business partners and customers? I mean you wouldn’t hire this guy to be a cashier at Taco Bell but somehow we can justify him for President?

How good is she at defensive rankings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, cosjobs said:

How good is she at defensive rankings?

She has the best defencive rankings. A lot of people think the defence is just about the d but it’s also about the fence. And a fence is really just a wall. So she’s going to make sure you get the best dewall (fence) to stream and you won’t have to pay any FAAB for it. No your neighbor and home-league commish Juan is going to pay for it. What do we want? A defence! Who’s going pay for it? Juan!

Also she might be colluding with your division rival Sergei trading him Nick Chubb and George Kittle for some help in the 2020 dynasty draft. 

Edited by Ilov80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

It really is an interesting thought exercise. I'd say you can take religion AND morality out of it. Say the future president has zero moral values. If he can get done what you want done, do you support him? Say you're a strong progressive and you know the presidential candidate is an awful human being. But he is effective and he can get universal health care done, get gun control done, and get immigration the way you want. Do you support him? 

I'd say it depends on what else comes with the deal? 

But it's an interesting thought exercise.

For me it's easy.  The answer is no.  I've said here many times morality comes before all else.  Because, in my opinion, that's where this all goes off the rails.  You have high moral people in office things get better by default.  I would absolutely not vote for a morally bankrupt person even if they lined up perfectly with me politically.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.