If Donald Trump should get elected, then impeachment proceedings should begin immediately after his swearing in ceremony. His impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors relate to his extreme obtuseness, his imbecility, his crooked business dealings, tax avoidance, and general intelligence-insulting utterances.

How can a man with hands that small be president? What is he gonna shake Putin's baby toe? That's not classy.

In all seriousness though, no, sex scandals should not disqualify presidents because last i checked sex scandals were not inherently criminal. You might lose more than half your shit in the divorce, but that's for the spouse to decide (if a divorce is wanted), just like how it's the voting public's right to decide who they want to put in that most heated of seats, regardless of whether or not he has the appearance AND brain AND sex drive of a red-assed-orange-coated mountain baboon.

Unless you can show me the law where womanizing disqualifies you from the presidency, I'm actually inclined to believe that America loves to care but in the end really does not. See: Bill Clinton.

You're right though, this is no worse that all we have seen before from trump. The new great wall for me is enough to not take him seriously as a thinker on policy, which leaves me to speculate whether or not he is a calculating genius for being able to get where he has gotten. But then I remember where and why this all started... Hillary -"It's my turn"- Clinton. She bullied sanders out of what seemed to be a sure win against trump in the general election. The constant litany of serious scandals both in her party, the charity organization her hubby founded, and in the performance of her own official governmental duties would be grounds to have anyone else laughed straight out of North America and into some Tahitian dive bar.

Where m'ah country gone? (Actually I'm canadian, so it would be pronounced: "Where's aboots is your country gone to eh?".

Edit: meant general election, not the primary (proof I am Canadian)

If Trump's only crime was to be stupid enough to be himself that alone should disqualify him from any public office. Anyway, of course there is a necessary hypocrisy here. The dignity of office is upheld in so far as the individual who holds it is perceived to be dignified.

Here in the UK, to 'Trump' is another word for expelling hot air from one's bottom...

Which is at the same intellectual level as almost all criticism of Trump you will encounter in the media.

But then again, when you factor in that 95% of TV advertisement spending leading up to the election is by Clinton, you've got to suspect 95% bias.

I am genuinely concerned that someone whose Presidential campaign is 20% funded by Saudi Arabia, whose personal charity received huge donations from Saudi, and who claims Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, becomes president.

...and where do the Saudi's get that money from in the first place?

If you follow the money trail, we are all responsible really as we buy the oil.

Whilst money is still the main method used to assess one's worth in this world, nothing will change.

The highest moral standards, since they set the tone for everyone else. If the President cheats on his wife/husband, it will encourage little Joe and Jenny to do the same - that's terrible - regardless of how discrete it is - in fact the more discrete, the worse. It's preferable that he be not discrete if he does it at all, so that the public can take attitude against it.

That's true. I remember back in 1998 when I was a wee one sanctimoniously holding to the rod of righteous monogamy after marriage, but when Clinton showed me that I could do so much more -- that, my friend, is when the impure thoughts began to snowball into libertine excesses.

So do you believe that what the President does then doesn't affect the beliefs of the masses? ( NO - not your beliefs - the beliefs of the masses).

I think "affect" is a wider term than "encourage" -- I don't think that just because someone in power does something that "the masses" will then be more prone to follow suit. Especially with sex. People like having sex regardless of what the person in power does.

I think "affect" is a wider term than "encourage" -- I don't think that just because someone in power does something that "the masses" will then be more prone to follow suit. — Moliere

Okay, I disagree with that. It is well known that most people follow their leaders at least to a certain extent and seek to emulate them.

People like having sex regardless of what the person in power does. — Moliere

This is besides the point. The question was precisely in what circumstances they do it, not whether or not they like having sex...

Though I agree that "who cares?", I don't think that the offense of DT was extra-marital sexuality, but his flouting sexual assault just because he happened to have the power to do so while famous.

Okay, I disagree with that. It is well known that most people follow their leaders at least to a certain extent and seek to emulate them. — Agustino

Can you demonstrate that? I mean, suppose it were not well known. I obviously don't know it, because I don't believe it.

How do you determine who counts as "most people" and what does it mean to follow a leader? And how does that differ from following a leader "to a certain extent" -- and isn't that actually different from emulation? Is it well known that most people seek to emulate the people they follow?

I think you're taking too much for granted, and oversimplifying how people actually behave. Even (or perhaps, especially -- its more complicated) en masse.

Do you disagree with the psychological fact that people emulate those who are perceived as leaders? Really this is a silly game - what do you expect me to do? Quote to you research studies about this finding? If you just open your eyes and look around you, you will see that people do seek to emulate those who are perceived to be leaders - there would be no need for a study. But because you insist here you go:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1013826126058
The Alure of Toxic Leaders

Now let's see if this changes anything - of course it doesn't - because what's happening with you is that you don't want to believe it in the first place, as it is ruinous to your political beliefs.

And really I don't understand why these corrupt folks in the media are so outraged about what Trump said - many in Hollywood and the media are equally promiscuous, and think equally bad about women - in fact they treat women no differently than Trump. So why are they making a big fuss? Only because Trump speaks it, while they only think it and never say it? This is outrageous. They are just as bad as Trump - they should indict themselves as well. That guy Billy Bush - why is no one picking on him? Are his views on women decent? What about everyone else around Trump when he said it? They too have decent views on women?

Unless there have been dramatic developments that haven't reached these sures, I'm pretty certain its only Trump of all these sinners that's running for the office popularly known as 'the most powerful man in the world'. Whilst I'm all for straightening out the whole world it does seem to me that there are priorities!

Oh so then it becomes a problem to mistreat women, and to be immoral if you're President, but if you're the average Joe it's okay right? We should tolerate it then? Really the corrupt and lying mass media knew about this for a very very long time! They should've made a fuss about it when it happened - not now. They are much worse than Trump - in fact they are Trump's teachers - just as they are the teachers of millions of young people nowadays.

Yup, that's exactly what I said! (Dammit, why's there no facepalm emoji?)

It seems as though Trump's locker room banter might stick him. Here is Nigel Farage's take:

“Look, this is alpha male boasting. It’s the kind of thing, if we are being honest, that men do. They sit around and have a drink and they talk like this.

“By the way, quite a lot of women say things amongst themselves that they would not want to see on Fox News, or the front page of a newspaper. I’m not pretending it’s good – it’s ugly, it is ugly.”

Unless you can show me the law where womanizing disqualifies you from the presidency, I'm actually inclined to believe that America loves to care but in the end really does not. See: Bill Clinton. — VagabondSpectre

As I understand it, (though I haven't heard the exact recording of what he said), the issue is not one of "womanizing", but that what Trump described is apprehended as an act of sexual harassment, at least, if not assault.

If only this Crooked Media would be as outraged about Clinton's rape accusations as they are about Trump's comments...

Hillary hasn't been accused of raping anyone in the non-metaphorical sense of the word. She's running, not Bill.

Beyond that, it is her word against his.

In 1997, Broaddrick filed an affadavit with Paula Jones' lawyers saying Clinton did not assault her. In 1998, Broaddrick told Kenneth Starr's FBI investigators that she was raped.

Beyond that it is her word against his. — Cavacava

As it is in every case of sexual harassment. Who do you believe? Hillary is running as promoting herself as being the only candidate that cares about woman's issues yet sets out on campaign to attack her husband's accusers, takes money from countries that reject the idea of women's rights, etc.

If anything, her attacks on Trump for belittling women are hypocritical, and both would cancel each other out in this regard. So, then why vote for either one? It certainly can't be because one is more for women's rights than the other.

One lies about her lack of security with her email server, while the other makes rude comments about women, which many men have said in confidence with each other numerous times - and who knows what women say about men in confidence? Has any of us lowly citizens been at fault for putting our national security at risk as opposed to talking about some group in a half-joking way? Actually some of us have been caught putting our national security at risk and they were punished. Not so for Hillary. Trump was simply speaking honestly from experience. There are women who allow themselves to groped by someone if they are famous as opposed to not being famous.

I personally didn't like Trump's boasting about going after a married woman. And wasn't he married at the time? I guess I'm a bit old-fashioned on this matter. The other stuff was pathetic IMO for a 60-something-year-old man, but yeah that kind of bravado is common amongst men, especially teenagers and young adults. Just as seeing an older man get drunk is sad, so is hearing him brag about his sex life like he's in high school.

And I don't buy the 'everyone does it so what's the big deal' argument. I work with very blue collar dudes - some whom ran with gangs in their younger years - and of course the topic of sexual conquests comes up. We're not talking about the latest books we've read. But even amongst the 'rabble' there's generally a certain level of respect when family is concerned, even a stranger's. Now some of these guys probably would try to fuck a married woman, but they wouldn't brag about it, and they definitely wouldn't receive praise if they did. They'd be seen as punks.

Maybe this type of sexual deviance is less prone to censure amongst upper crust society. I don't run in those circles and so may be naive about what takes place in their marriages, which, to stereotype, are probably grounded in wealth and other fickle things. My point is that cheating on your wife - or even sleeping with another man's wife - is in no context that I've been around a commendable thing. At least it's not for lower or middle class Americans. The much-maligned, unsophisticated masses still have a sense of chivalry when it comes to the treatment of married women and children. That's my experience at least. Cheating husbands (and wives) are not respected at all and are subject to some ostracism.

And the relevance of this is that his appeal is largely confined to those very blue collar voters whose values he claims to represent. There may be some admiration for his ability to get beautiful women, but I think he crossed a line or two here. Dude's a complete fraud.

Yes, Trump boasted about sexually assaulting woman. And most Trump supporters apparently think that's normal behaviour, which speaks volumes about their values or lack thereof. In this sense, Trump is actually a boon - not only is he destroying one of America's political hegemonies, he's very effectively highlighting the hypocrisy of so-called social conservatives*. That moral values have never been the driving force for the majority of this group is not something that surprises me. The in-group cohesion of ideology (of which "morality" and "religion" are just incidental parts) generally exists to serve only power and control. But the Trump situation exposes this more obviously by opening up a huge chasm between moral principle and political power that to one side or the other social conservatives are forced to jump. Note the ensuing mass abandonment of principle. Moral charlatans like Ben Carson and his ilk will happily vote for Trump no matter how much he apparently contradicts their moral values for a very simple reason. There is nothing of substance to contradict. Power trumps morality.

(*And at no substantive cost as - as I've said before - he is not in any real danger of winning.)

I personally didn't like Trump's boasting about going after a married woman. And wasn't he married at the time? I guess I'm a bit old-fashioned on this matter. The other stuff was pathetic IMO for a 60-something-year-old man, but yeah that kind of bravado is common amongst men, especially teenagers and young adults. Just as seeing an older man get drunk is sad, so is hearing him brag about his sex life like he's in high school. — Erik

Yes he was indeed married. Of course, it's something that must be condemned. But if we are to condemn it, we have to condemn it everywhere. Trump is just a small case - seeing the high school kid brag about his sex life is just as bad. Seeing Hollywood actors shag each with everyone, divorcing 5 hundred times, etc. these are also disgusting displays of lack of morality, which need to be sanctioned. But apparently some folk think that we should only sanction Trump - which is precisely the problem. The fact that we live in a culture where this behaviour is not only acceptable, but is cool - that is the problem. Why was Trump acting that way? Because he knows that's how a "cool" person acts. And everyone knows that that's what being perceived as cool is - because we have a rotten culture. So the problem is with the media and Hollywood - who have created this culture - not with Trump who is merely an instantiation and end result of their work. Trump is a very useful tool - he exposes their hypocrisy.

Moral charlatans like Ben Carson and his ilk will happily vote for Trump no matter how much he apparently contradicts their moral values for a very simple reason. There is nothing of substance to contradict. Power trumps morality. — Baden

Yeah for a very simple reason that he says he will appoint conservative Judges, he will put tougher restrictions on abortion, he will end illegal immigration, etc. What does Crooked say on the other hand? That she will appoint progressive Judges. She will license partial birth abortion. That's the problem. It's not about the single person, but also about who surrounds them. Social conservatives have a degree of control over Trump that they don't over Clinton. I don't really care if Trump himself will be immoral so long as he will be a useful tool for the social conservative agenda. It's a calculated sacrifice - lose a pawn, in order to win the game.

I agree with you on most of that, other than the idea that it's perceived as cool to cheat on your spouse. Again the key qualification here is it's not cool amongst 'average' lower or middle class folk. And I would also distinguish between the words and behavior of a teenage boy and an older man, the latter of whom should have moved beyond the objectification of women and caving in to peer pressure by the time he's in his sixties (or fifties, or forties, or even thirties).

Not sure about you, but I think about what I did in my late teens and early twenties and cringe. Who the hell was that stupid kid? It was me, sadly. So 'boys will be boys' seems to hold to a certain extent, independent of the social context. And women can indeed be just as vulgar as men! I believe someone made that point earlier, and I think it's true. But I could be wrong about these things and would like to hear your arguments to the contrary.

I still think the 'average' person is a bit embarrassed that their their marriage failed, or that they were caught cheating, etc. These things happen, obviously, but extra-marital affairs are not seen as praiseworthy no matter how normalized and acceptable those who try to shape culture would like them to be. We're moving in that direction for sure, but there's still some lingering respect for the institution of marriage amongst the masses.

As the product of a failed marriage and a broken home, I think maintaining some respect for marriage is a good thing, however antiquated that sounds to progressives. I think my parent's divorce and subsequent remarriage(s) had a devastating impact upon me and my siblings, so we tend to share your conservatism on this issue up to a certain point. I don't care if it's between two men, two women, or between a woman and a man -- a lifelong commitment, regardless of circumstances, is a sublime and praiseworthy thing, and precisely because it's so 'unnatural' and difficult. But I don't want to sidetrack this topic so I'll leave it at that.

Earlier in this thread, you said the President should set...

The highest moral standards, since they set the tone for everyone else. If the President cheats on his wife/husband, it will encourage little Joe and Jenny to do the same - that's terrible - regardless of how discrete it is - in fact the more discrete, the worse. It's preferable that he be not discrete if he does it at all, so that the public can take attitude against it. — Agustino

Now you say...

I don't really care if Trump himself will be immoral — Agustino

If your goal is to prove my point, then by contradicting yourself so openly you are doing it more effectively than I alone could . But then as I said before in regards to most social conservatives' "morality":

There is nothing of substance to contradict. — Baden

Maybe this type of sexual deviance is less prone to censure amongst upper crust society. I don't run in those circles and so may be naive about what takes place in their marriages, which, to stereotype, are probably grounded in wealth and other fickle things. — Erik

The highest moral standards, since they set the tone for everyone else. If the President cheats on his wife/husband, it will encourage little Joe and Jenny to do the same - that's terrible - regardless of how discrete it is - in fact the more discrete, the worse. It's preferable that he be not discrete if he does it at all, so that the public can take attitude against it. — Agustino

I just don't get invited to upper crust soirees and cocktail parties either, so I don't know from personal experience what goes on up there. But surely CLASS is a significant issue here.

The relationship between the upper crust and the bottom crust is complicated. Rich men can access or create sexual opportunities for themselves, and defend themselves against consequences much more effectively than working class "little Joe and Jenny". On the other hand, men like Trump have more to lose, and these days are more likely to be featured in media reports.

Accurate knowledge is also a factor: “Men want to think women don’t cheat, and women want men to think they don’t cheat, and therefore the sexes have been playing a little psychological game with each other.” a General Social Survey researcher noted.

[1]

The most consistent data on infidelity come from the General Social Survey (GSS), sponsored by the National Science Foundation and based at the University of Chicago, which has used a national representative sample to track the opinions and social behaviors of Americans since 1972. The survey data show that in any given year, about 10 percent of married people — 12 percent of men and 7 percent of women — say they have had sex outside their marriage.


Unfortunately, the GSS did not begin it's work back in the 1920s, so it's data is all post the 1960s sexual revolution.

How the upper crust influences the bottom crust is fairly uncertain. Presidents, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Clinton all had the makings of politically debilitating sex scandals, but in the case of FDR, Ike, and JFK, the press didn't publish what it knew. If people didn't know that JFK had a voracious sexual appetite, it couldn't affect their judgement. (Of course the Kennedy family had a huge impact on the popular culture outside the area of executive philandering.)