Does it really matter?

I think....

  • It doesn't matter, so long as there is nothing illegal

    Votes: 4 44.4%
  • It does matter. A political leader should set a moral example

    Votes: 5 55.6%

  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .

enlightenment

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,302
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Do we sometimes expect just too much from world leaders and politicians?

Surely it is enough if one actually delivered on pledges and promises made, without having this unrealistic expectation that in their private life, they should live like saints, and be above the sort of things that many members of the public engage in?

Does it really matter if a world leader left his wife?

Does it really matter if he had an affair?

Does it really matter if he had engaged in homosexual sex?

Does it really matter if he even decides to pay for sex, as long as it is legal to do so in the given place?

I am not convinced that it does matter.

You may take the view that someone of 'integrity' would do such things, therefore, one that did is not 'fit' to be a leader.

Surely this is hypocrtical nonsense.

I would not be surprised if there are people who post on here who have done at least one of those things listed above, and that is fair enough.

What is not fair enough, is for you to have done so, then, somehow you would spit the dummy out if it turned out that Obama, for example, had done the same thing!

Even a world leader is entitled to a private life, and as long as he or she is commiting no crime, then I do not really see what business it is of anyone's what he gets up to.

Agree/disagree..?
 
Do we sometimes expect just too much from world leaders and politicians?

YES

should .. be above the sort of things that many members of the public engage in?

YES

Does it really matter if a world leader left his wife?

MAYBE, depends how it is ...

Does it really matter if he had an affair?

YES

Does it really matter if he had engaged in homosexual sex?

NO

Does it really matter if he even decides to pay for sex, as long as it is legal to do so in the given place?

YES

Even a world leader is entitled to a private life, and as long as he or she is commiting no crime, then I do not really see what business it is of anyone's what he gets up to.

Agree/disagree..?

NO


By definition, leader, I'm looking for someone who leads, sets the example. Bill Clinton was single handedly able to make oral sex not sex in the eyes of young teens across the country, not the legacy I'd think for a leader.

I think folks actions speak to their character, I'd also give them the benefit of the doubt. ie it doesn't upset me that Clinton smoked in the past, however claiming I didn't inhale meant to me that he was either partaking in lying to his friends (that he supposedly didn't inhale with) or lying to all of us to try to get elected. Either way it stated his character, which was proven correct. Don't get me wrong, he had plenty of valuable qualities, but as long as we follow our leaders whe should select them better.
 
I disagree.

We should expect a better quality of politician, in terms of being able to do the job. That would be fair enough. That would mean and end to people like Bush or Palin ever getting to the highest level of US politics.

As far as I know, neither Bush or Palin ever did any of the things I listed on my opening list, yet, I would say that they had the moral fibre of a crook, to be honest. There was nothing good nor nice about their manner, and their thinking. Yet, to many, they would be good wholesome folks, because, gee, they are both married, have the nuclear family, etc etc.

I world leader can have an affair, and still be an excellent leader.

It is no sleight on his professionalism or even personality.

Many good people have done the same thing in their own lives.

It happens.

*shrugs*
 
I world leader can have an affair, and still be an excellent leader.

It is no sleight on his professionalism or even personality.

Many good people have done the same thing in their own lives.

It happens.

*shrugs*
It happens. That is always so funny to me. Like I said, I would agree with someone leaving their mate over an affair (unless it was an open marriage part of the whole affair). ie If you've made a commitment to someone...you know, that monogamy thang...if you've made that commitment, promise an affair is a lie, a bold lie, not something that just happens.

"I don't know it just happened." "I didn't love her/him, it was just a physical thing".... whatever.

When did it just happen, when you decided to touch...when you decided to kiss...when you decided to grope? I mean how many minutes or even days/weeks did you contemplate this...how many opportunities did you have to decide your word was more important than a fling?

It happens seems to me to say I tripped and like accidental penetration...give me a break, it is a break in trust of the most personal kind. If you'll screw someone else whilst screwing your mate over in the process, what chance does your constituency have?
 
Do we sometimes expect just too much from world leaders and politicians?

Surely it is enough if one actually delivered on pledges and promises made, without having this unrealistic expectation that in their private life, they should live like saints, and be above the sort of things that many members of the public engage in?

Does it really matter if a world leader left his wife?

Does it really matter if he had an affair?

Does it really matter if he had engaged in homosexual sex?

Does it really matter if he even decides to pay for sex, as long as it is legal to do so in the given place?

I am not convinced that it does matter.

You may take the view that someone of 'integrity' would do such things, therefore, one that did is not 'fit' to be a leader.

Surely this is hypocrtical nonsense.

I would not be surprised if there are people who post on here who have done at least one of those things listed above, and that is fair enough.

What is not fair enough, is for you to have done so, then, somehow you would spit the dummy out if it turned out that Obama, for example, had done the same thing!

Even a world leader is entitled to a private life, and as long as he or she is commiting no crime, then I do not really see what business it is of anyone's what he gets up to.

Agree/disagree..?
If a military man (American), has an extramarital affair, he is subject to Courts martial. Same goes if he is "caught" in homosexual relations. Same goes if he assaults another, or lies to his superiors. Same goes if he does "anything" to bring discredit to the uniform or to the United States...why would not the "Commander in Chief" be subject to the same rules enforced on his troops?

Leaders must be above reproach. That is why we look up to them. They are the epitome of what we hope to be.

Even David (God's favored one), nearly lost his throne because of his indiscresions. And even then, he never fully regained the glory he previously had.

It is one thing to make mistakes. It is another thing to think we can keep getting away with it, because we are above the law.
 
From what I understand, both FDR and Sir Winston Churchill both had extramarital affairs, yet Adolf Hitler was of a "moral" character.

Sorry. Just my $.02 here. :eek:

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine
 
Even David (God's favored one), nearly lost his throne because of his indiscresions. And even then, he never fully regained the glory he previously had.
IMO, these charges were fabricated against the prophets precisely to bring
their image down to the level of the everyday man, so that people would feel
less guilty about their own sins.

The Quran makes a very firm point to clear all the prophets of such charges,
and re-establishes the image of true leadership as truly uncompromising.
 
IMO, these charges were fabricated against the prophets precisely to bring
their image down to the level of the everyday man, so that people would feel
less guilty about their own sins.

The Quran makes a very firm point to clear all the prophets of such charges,
and re-establishes the image of true leadership as truly uncompromising.

This is not about 'prophets' or any 'holy' books though.

It is about mere mortals.
 
It happens. That is always so funny to me. Like I said, I would agree with someone leaving their mate over an affair (unless it was an open marriage part of the whole affair). ie If you've made a commitment to someone...you know, that monogamy thang...if you've made that commitment, promise an affair is a lie, a bold lie, not something that just happens.

"I don't know it just happened." "I didn't love her/him, it was just a physical thing".... whatever.

When did it just happen, when you decided to touch...when you decided to kiss...when you decided to grope? I mean how many minutes or even days/weeks did you contemplate this...how many opportunities did you have to decide your word was more important than a fling?

It happens seems to me to say I tripped and like accidental penetration...give me a break, it is a break in trust of the most personal kind. If you'll screw someone else whilst screwing your mate over in the process, what chance does your constituency have?


Pedantic semantics. :p

You know what I meant with the use of the term 'it happens'.

Relationships break up. It is a fact of life. People have affairs. Fact of life. I do not fairly see why we should have expectations of political leaders which we cannot/do not expect of ourselves.

Which would you prefer? An excellent and eloquent leader who had had an affair, or one that hadn't, yet was a bumbling fool?
 
If a military man (American), has an extramarital affair, he is subject to Courts martial. Same goes if he is "caught" in homosexual relations..

Being gay does not make one less of a professional, at whatever that profession happens to be. This includes soldering.
 
Pedantic semantics. :p

You know what I meant with the use of the term 'it happens'.

Relationships break up. It is a fact of life. People have affairs. Fact of life. I do not fairly see why we should have expectations of political leaders which we cannot/do not expect of ourselves.

Which would you prefer? An excellent and eloquent leader who had had an affair, or one that hadn't, yet was a bumbling fool?

I prefer the former. I think I have to agree here that too much emphasis is being put here over semantics.

The Bush administration stank of arrogance. The Bush administration said, "We've got the power and the means to impose our authority over the rest of the world, to dictate the agenda and see it come to pass. We do what we do simply because we can." Under the Bush administration the U.S. became a selfish superpower, concerned only about its own safety and security, lacking regard for the welfare of other countries. It invaded two countries despite the lack of provocation from those countries, using the excuse that the two countries probably harboured terrorists.

Under the Bush administration, America's public and household debt increased to alarmingly high levels. America became a debt-driven superpower. The Bush administration promoted a lifestyle of shopping and buying. Americans lived under more and more borrowed money from poorer countries as well as under their hard-earned labour. Americans lived easy lives they didn't deserve. The Bush administration was responsible for this, responsible for leading the American people astray, responsible for leading the American people to sabotage their own economy through frivolous borrowing and lending and the subprime mortgage crisis.

Rather than teaching people to be frugal and prudent, the President, the leader of the nation, taught them frivolity, impetuosity and recklessness. Why should I elect such a president? This is worse than someone who has oral sex with an intern. Clinton showed that he couldn't control his primal instincts. Bush showed that he couldn't run the country, and didn't understand that you couldn't just flaunt U.S. military power around the world (and go into huge amounts of debt and use huge amounts of oil) just because you had the power. Bush had even less prudence than Clinton.

The kind of semantics being advocated here would elect the kind of President that the U.S. has had for the last eight years.

The kind of semantics being advocated led to the election of a worse President.

It makes me lose confidence in the value of such semantics.

It should make us learn the foolishness of putting our trust in such semantics.

I would elect a philanderer to the highest office in the country if he could prove to me that he had a better foreign policy and could help develop a stronger economy and stronger country politically, militarily, socially and economically.

I don't care even if the church leadership is full of philanderers, paedophiles, whores and prostitutes. What matters is that they are honest and open about their failings and are able to provide spiritual guidance and leadership. It is much better than having liars, greedy capitalists and hedonists, fundamentalists and hell-fire preachers as part of the church leadership. The difference between the former and the latter is that the latter often contributes more to social, political, economic and ideological injustice. The latter are part of a group that ruins people's lives and inflicts emotional damage on the community due to their arrogance. The reason why I would choose the former is their humility. I would trust and have more faith in the former more than the latter.

I have more confidence in a person who openly sins or has confessed than some alleged "holy man" who sins and commits a crime in private. The only crime of the open-sinner is getting caught in the act. The former is genuine. The latter is a phony. Perhaps there is no real difference between them and there is something of which we all need to repent. I trust Clinton more than Bush or Obama because Clinton has confessed. Bush and Obama have not confessed.

Adultery seems to be the "big sin," greater even than smoking marijuana, alcoholism, even than terrorism and murder. Why? It's because it's the weakness we all have. Nobody was born for marijuana, alcoholism, terrorism and murder, but it seems we were all born to commit adultery. It seems that everyone wants to test politicians on their ability to control their sex drive. How humiliating is it to be dragged into the public's eye and have your greatest vulnerability revealed before the whole country? It is a great loss of honour for that person. It's an embarrassment.

What I find worse than committing adultery is the inability to confess committing it. It is the one weakness we all have, but maybe a lot of us are too ashamed to confess. It's like the saying: Courage is not the absense of fear, it is the understanding that there is something more important than fear. For integrity, I would say it is not the absence of misconduct, but the willingness to confess misconduct, to be honest and transparent. Clinton did eventually confess and I have to commend him for that.

Maybe we should all repent and confess our sins tomorrow. Let it all be revealed. Father, mother, brother, sister, my darling and sweetheart, my children, my friends, I have deceived you! I have lied to you! I have sinned! I was wrong to exploit your faith in me. I am sorry that I don't measure up to the greatness you ascribe to me. You were proud of me and I was too ashamed to admit you were wrong.

The kind of semantics advocated above has led to the election of a President who contributed more to social, political, economic and ideological injustice than one who violated such semantics. This reduces my confidence in such semantics.
 
personally, i dont like the fact that the media/public make such a big deal over public figures indescretions...... I dont want to know about it...... it is embarrassing and uncomfortable and to me, its not news.
But,
call me naive, but i do like to think that the people we put into "high" positions should be above that...... I do get disappointed when i hear about these things, yeah, they are only human, but to me, TRUST is the big issue, and obviously their "loved ones" cant trust em to keep it in their pants, i cant trust em on the big issues either......
Its probably just me....but once the trust is gone,,,,,,, its gone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It makes a great deal of difference to me whether the politician in question has made a career of trying to sic the law on people who do exactly what he does.
 
From what I understand, both FDR and Sir Winston Churchill both had extramarital affairs, yet Adolf Hitler was of a "moral" character.

Sorry. Just my $.02 here. :eek:

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine
Only if you consider genocide to be of high moral character. We do need to look at the whole picture yes? And yes our Presidency is littered with folks who had affairs in the whitehouse. Kennedy was famous for it, and Johnson was pissed that with all his daliances that he didn't have the same rep.
 
personally, i dont like the fact that the media/public make such a big deal over public figures indescretions...... I dont want to know about it...... it is embarrassing and uncomfortable and to me, its not news.
But,
call me naive, but i do like to think that the people we put into "high" positions should be above that...... I do get disappointed when i hear about these things, yeah, they are only human, but to me, TRUST is the big issue, and obviously their "loved ones" cant trust em to keep it in their pants, i cant trust em on the big issues either......
Its probably just me....but once the trust is gone,,,,,,, its gone.

But that is merely taking a snapshot of one example, and even in that example, what we call 'infidelity' is a normal action of man, it is not a given that the person engaging in the infidelity will be any less professional in the job that we are really meant to be voting them in for, and that is to implement the manifesto of their party - no more.

Who knows the background that may have caused the man, in theory, to have sought out affection elsewhere? We don't, therefore, we are in no position to judge any 'famous' person for something like that.

I am betting that if it came to light tomorrow that Obama was actually a bisexual man, and that his wife knew about it, and was happy with that, half of the States would be out with their pitchforks.

Would it make Obama any less a President for such a thing?

Of course not.

Therefore, why would so many be prepared to use such a thing to undermine the man? The answer is simple. We condemn actions in others, which are often a reflection of our very own behaviour.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It makes a great deal of difference to me whether the politician in question has made a career of trying to sic the law on people who do exactly what he does.

I did say so long as the action were not illegal.

Thanks
 
Only if you consider genocide to be of high moral character. We do need to look at the whole picture yes? And yes our Presidency is littered with folks who had affairs in the whitehouse. Kennedy was famous for it, and Johnson was pissed that with all his daliances that he didn't have the same rep.

But, so what?

Influential man attracts female admirers shocker?

*Shrugs*

It''s not my business what he does in the bedroom.

It is not his business what we do in ours.
 
But that is merely taking a snapshot of one example, and even in that example, what we call 'infidelity' is a normal action of man, it is not a given that the person engaging in the infidelity will be any less professional in the job that we are really meant to be voting them in for, and that is to implement the manifesto of their party - no more.

Who knows the background that may have caused the man, in theory, to have sought out affection elsewhere? We don't, therefore, we are in no position to judge any 'famous' person for something like that.

I am betting that if it came to light tomorrow that Obama was actually a bisexual man, and that his wife knew about it, and was happy with that, half of the States would be out with their pitchforks.

Would it make Obama any less a President for such a thing?

Of course not.

Therefore, why would so many be prepared to use such a thing to undermine the man? The answer is simple. We condemn actions in others, which are often a reflection of our very own behaviour.



of course, you are right enlightenment.
His or her personal life shouldnt reflect on the job at hand.
And YES it should stay personal, i dont want to know about it.........
HOWEVER
I do not agree that infidelity is a normal action of man. (argue with me about this til you are blue in the face, i do not agree).
And with infidelity goes lying, and I cannot stomach that. And I certainly wouldnt trust this person..
Yes, i do judge, i am sorry, i am only human, and that is one of my many flaws. ( I do try to keep this in check.)
And as a reflection of my own behaviour??????? I think not.
 
of course, you are right enlightenment.
His or her personal life shouldnt reflect on the job at hand.
And YES it should stay personal, i dont want to know about it.........
HOWEVER
I do not agree that infidelity is a normal action of man. (argue with me about this til you are blue in the face, i do not agree).
And with infidelity goes lying, and I cannot stomach that. And I certainly wouldnt trust this person..
Yes, i do judge, i am sorry, i am only human, and that is one of my many flaws. ( I do try to keep this in check.)
And as a reflection of my own behaviour??????? I think not.

I don't especially want this to turn into a thread about 'infidelity', Greymare.

However.

I shall ask you this.

If a man (or woman for that matter), remains in a marriage that he gets nothing from, be that emotional, physical, or both, is he really an honest man?

Really?


Or is he in fact lying ... to himself, and indeed, to his partner?

Going through the motions each day. Is that 'truth'? Is that noble? I for one do not think so.

Besides which, I guess, if you really wanted to, you could argue that if infidelity isn't a normal action of mankind, then neither is marriage itself.

At least the first is instinct driven, the latter is merely a concept, entirely conceived by man.
 
Back
Top