In an exchange that began with a conservative friend fretting over CNN’s obvious obsession with bringing down tRumph he commented, turns out accidentally, that in view of the scandals he’d blame Melania for leaving tRumph. That didn’t make sense so I commented:
You’d blame Melania if she left Trump? That doesn’t seem to make sense. She should “stand by here man” while he has multiple affairs? That doesn’t make sense. And Clinton’s alleged misbehavior doesn’t give a Trump a pass.
Does CNN want to bring down Trump or are they unapologetic about reporting legal actions being conducted in relation to his actions before, during and after the election? Bill Clinton, sad that he didn’t live up to his ideals… again, that doesn’t excuse Trump’s behavior in view of the open investigations and legal situation his administration is currently engaged in.
Where’s the line? Paying off porn-stars to not talk about affairs? Using stolen emails as political canon fodder? Promising to put in Russia-friendly state department personal in favor of “loans” and “business arrangements”? Where’s the line?
My friends response, noting that he meant to say that wouldn’t blame Mrs. tRumph III for leaving …
“Joe, I meant to say that I WOULDN’T BLAME Melania if she did. The only reason HRC “stood by her man” was so that she could stay in power. I am not trying to give Trump a pass, and Clinton’s alleged misbehavior – especially during office – cheapened his presidency. Immorality is immorality. Marriage vows are supposed to mean something. What I find interesting is how HRC sought to destroy each of the women who brought such allegations. Where was her support for the women who had been sexually assaulted by her husband? Too bad there wasn’t a #MeToo movement going on at that time. Rather, the Democrats in power, at the time, stated that “We had to learn to understand why Bill Clinton did what he did, and to “just give him a chance”. No such mercy for Trump.”
Yeah, the only reason I’m bringing up this exchange is the assumption to know what someone is thinking and not attributing the same humanity one would hope to have others attribute to ones own actions. I see this all the time with tech journalists assuming to know why company Z released some product, etc. As frustrating as it can be for these wanna-be super sleuths or arm-chair psychoanalysts, no one who has studied human intentionality would risk to fathom the real thoughts behind the words or actions of others. I would also caution those wanting to make mental/medical diagnosis on tRumpf from afar. These are concerns that will need to be written into law, just like the nepotism laws that followed JFK’s presidency and oversight laws following Nixon’s presidency.
But on the human level, to assume to know that Hillary didn’t divorce Bill because X, Y or Z is pure backyard gossip. You don’t know. And to use the phrase “Marriage vows are supposed to mean something” in defense of a president who has shown a consistent blatant disregard for his marriage vows for all three of his marriages, is pretty much without merit. Regardless of Bill & Hillary’s marriage ills (a marriage, by the way, that is still intact) none of this gives tRumpf and his many wives and many lovers a pass. Period. Frankly, being an imperfect human with my own closet full of character flaws, I’d be moved to understand his failings if he (and Bill, at the time) stood up to his critics and acknowledged his failing and said it was an issue(s) between him and his family and throw off the robe of Christian morals and admit that he is/was only interested in adding the belief that beautiful women found him attractive and he couldn’t and didn’t say “no.” Then we’d have a different discussion.
Right now all we have is backyard gossip, where Melania has wisely stayed silent, Hillary is dragged into it because she’s had the nerve to have a political opinion and act on it for the past 30-years, the current president has no respect for any vows whatsoever, the ruling party continually backs hypocrites and can’t get anything done because of their radical “burn it all down” right flank, and devout Christians have sold their alleged moral high ground for a seat on the supreme court. Don’t tell me that you know what anyone was thinking, because you elected a “soupreme” commander with the attention-span of a gnat.