05-03-2020, 11:16 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-03-2020, 11:18 AM by Bob Butler 54.)
The problem with sordid relationships is as old as human history, and likely longer. It doesn’t matter if the person involved is a tribal chief. warrior, noble, king, bishop, dictator, capitalist or politician, it is to the advantage of the species if the alpha male gets an extra chance to perpetuate his genes.
This has recently become more frowned upon by the culture. There was a time, when FDR, Ike or JFK were doing it, when the press would look the other way. Now they sell media coverage of it. It is currently considered sordid or worse. There have been times when it has been considered par for the course. Now, the idea that all people are considered equal has evolved to include victims of these sordid affairs. The standards are changing. Folks who considered such abuse par for the course are later getting burned on what was once par for the course. Still, it is only a strike against one. Whatever made one a mover and shaker is often considered more important that one’s preying upon woman.
I for one would like to see that change.
To the extent that it does no harm, I can let it go. To the extent it does harm - to the other woman, to the wife - I will ignore it less.
Right now, both major parties have nominated for president men who stand tainted. If given the choice, I would step to a candidate who is not. Unfortunately, I seem not to be in the majority. People of both parties will nominate tainted individuals. The parties themselves will obviously let it slide.
Those who bring in partisanship and racism are part of the problem. Some will vehemently oppose the other guys, and give their person a pass. This is part of the problem, part of the process. It is not a solution. It does not address the problem.
One can dream of a time when having such an affair will eliminate a person from contention in the democratic process. That time has obviously not come yet. The standards are shifting in that direction.
When people describe all members of a political party as being a certain way, of having a certain trait that is despised, I asked myself if I recognize myself. Do the people in the real world who belong to that party fit the description? Most often they don’t. You know you are dealing with a partisan hack with a distorted and vile picture of his rivals and a political agenda.
That is not how an interpreter of history ought to behave.
This has recently become more frowned upon by the culture. There was a time, when FDR, Ike or JFK were doing it, when the press would look the other way. Now they sell media coverage of it. It is currently considered sordid or worse. There have been times when it has been considered par for the course. Now, the idea that all people are considered equal has evolved to include victims of these sordid affairs. The standards are changing. Folks who considered such abuse par for the course are later getting burned on what was once par for the course. Still, it is only a strike against one. Whatever made one a mover and shaker is often considered more important that one’s preying upon woman.
I for one would like to see that change.
To the extent that it does no harm, I can let it go. To the extent it does harm - to the other woman, to the wife - I will ignore it less.
Right now, both major parties have nominated for president men who stand tainted. If given the choice, I would step to a candidate who is not. Unfortunately, I seem not to be in the majority. People of both parties will nominate tainted individuals. The parties themselves will obviously let it slide.
Those who bring in partisanship and racism are part of the problem. Some will vehemently oppose the other guys, and give their person a pass. This is part of the problem, part of the process. It is not a solution. It does not address the problem.
One can dream of a time when having such an affair will eliminate a person from contention in the democratic process. That time has obviously not come yet. The standards are shifting in that direction.
(05-03-2020, 09:15 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Lol! So you Democrats decided to lynch him because he wasn't aleftist. I think that Clarence Thomas would agree with you. There's nothing that Democrats hate more than an uppity black who doesn't obey his Democrat masters, and so he was lynched. That's how Democrats work.
When people describe all members of a political party as being a certain way, of having a certain trait that is despised, I asked myself if I recognize myself. Do the people in the real world who belong to that party fit the description? Most often they don’t. You know you are dealing with a partisan hack with a distorted and vile picture of his rivals and a political agenda.
That is not how an interpreter of history ought to behave.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
