Friday, March 25, 2016

What does it mean to be Presidential?

Today, I had a conversation on my Tighty White Press Facebook Page about what it means to be Presidential.  I would recommend for everyone to visit the article I posted there about Cruz's wife being attacked by Donald Trump and read the discussion in the comments.

I wrapped up the conversation after the other participant ended the dialogue.  Here's what I wrote:

"It would appear that you have stopped engaging the conversation about how unpresidential Donald Trump is. Let me wrap this up then.
First, you stated that Trump and Cruz were both deplorable in the way they behaved. I presented evidence that shows we have had Presidents in the past not acting as Presidential to your standards. We also talked about how Marco Rubio lured Donald Trump into the hand/penis bait comment and you agreed both were immature to do that as well.
When I asked you to define what it means to you to be "Presidential", you did not provide the criteria. I stated that no one currently in this election held to the standard of your criteria based on what I could surmise. You then mentioned Kasich and Sanders both acted with civility.
In a previous conversation with you on a friend's page, you suggested Donald Trump was not like Ronald Reagan and alluded to the fact that Ronald Reagan was the mark of a Presidential standard.
I provided links to 4 videos showing how Ronald Reagon told protesters to "Shut up" (not acting with civility) and then 2 videos of Kasich getting walked over by protesters (showing civility) and Sanders having his mic and podium taken over by protesters (showing civility). Then I stated that a President's first priority was to LEAD. How can a man/woman lead a country if they can't even control their own rallies? You ignored the Reagan comparisons to both Kasich and Sanders.
You brought up Paul Ryan who isn't even in the race! (Of course, I do believe the GOP is gunning for a brokered convention to nominate him, but that's a different subject altogether).
So we agree that Cruz, Rubio and Trump have been crass and many people have the opinion that all acted immaturely in some way. We also agreed that Clinton's behavior in the past wasn't Presidential either. 
So that leaves us looking at Kasich and Sanders who both allowed protesters to walk over them during their own rallies.
As I stated when I posted this article, I was expressing a distaste for the rhetoric and hyperbole that somehow made Cruz a victim in all of this. Cruz is no victim, but he is pandering for sympathy votes to try to win by making Trump be some kind of bully. And to a degree, it is my opinion that Trump can be very rude and brash, but as I've mentioned on my blog, my research thus far does not show Trump taunting anyone without provocation. I will continue to do research and if you find an example of this, please let me know.
As far as provocation goes, if a man were to come after my wife to get at me, I would declare his wife/spouse fair game for retaliation. I'm not talking violently. I understand the power of words and I would not hesitate to defend my family. That's what someone with morals would do if those words could cause harm. Cruz of all people should understand that given his wife's own mental issues. Society has a very negative perspective of people who suffer from mental illness. Cruz should have immediately come to Melania's defense at the very first deplorable use of that photo in that way. But he didn't. Could of, would of, should of. It didn't serve Cruz's political agenda at the time.
This has ben a dirty race. I for one am relieved to see the veil of hypocrisy removed so the public gets a good, hard look at the ugliness that is known as politics. Our politicians do not work for the voters, but the lobbyists, which is why I like Trump and Sanders who call attention to that. It is no accident that lobbyists spent $67 million dollars to try to shut Trump down. I would imagine that if Bernie was winning on his side, the lobbyists propaganda machine would also be in full swing against him too. Instead, they are using a different tactic on Bernie. They are appealing to his sense of fairness and civility. Bill Clinton violating the law in Massachusetts campaigning within 50 feet of a polling station, in Arizona, switching long-term registered Democrat voters to independent and denying them the right to cast a ballot, and so many more antics. They don't have to be so blatant with their attempts to bring Sanders down, he's already losing.
But Trump, well they have been gunning for him with everything and his numbers have gone up. Not because he's a racist or a misogynist as the media and establishment would have you to believe. No, People understand that their government has been taken over by special interests and lobbyists money. They can see that the system has thrown them overboard and the fake smiles and weak handshakes are tools that the establishment has used to disarm the people's feelings that something is wrong.
The people are essential recruiting the establishment's "bully" to stand up and fight for them. Why? Because he's proven that he can beat them at their own games."

I understand that there's a lot of commentary and opinion in the discussion at the end, but as you can see by the flow, I tried to keep the conversation to the facts.  The truth is, the particiant wanted to discuss political theory and philosophy.  I'm down with that.

In conclusion, I feel that I have not done enough fact checking for this blog yet to be fully effective.  I am working on it and I prefer to have more facts than commentary here.  I have other writing obligations I'm trying to fulfill, so please bear with me.


No comments:

Post a Comment