jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (33 posts)

Trump v. Hillary; Offensiveness v. Crookedness

  1. GA Anderson profile image83
    GA Andersonposted 2 weeks ago

    A thought was prompted by recent news blurbs, (including CNN and others), that have reported a "new, active" FBI investigation concerning the Clinton's charity Foundation. Some blurbs also mentioned the Uranium One deal as part of the investigation.

    I am not promoting any perspective of this news; whether it be true or false, politics or fact driven. Nor am I inviting a discussion of the issue or "Hillary's crimes."

    Just a hypothetical thought: If Hillary was guilty of all the things her detractors have accused her of, (remember, it's an "if", not an "is"), and, the comparison between the voters' choice was known crookedness vs. known offensiveness, (yes, I know that is a Trump supporter's mantra), would it make any difference to anti-Trump folks?

    Is Pres. Trump's offensiveness so bad that known, (remember, a hypothetical "known"), political corruption is the lesser of two evils?

    ps. Fair warning: I hope to enlist promisem to keep this thread focused on that one question. ;-)

    GA

    1. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      GA, I guess we both tend to bait each other.  smile

      I disagree with your premise that one is crooked and the other simply offensive.

      Assuming for a moment that both Trump and Hillary are equally crooked and equally offensive, I would very reluctantly choose Hillary as the lesser of two evils.

      By words and actions, she is more mentally stable than Trump, wouldn't threaten nuclear war and would govern the country from center left (again for the record, I am center right) and not from the divisive far right.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        I didn't get that as a premise.  It's not that they are considered, for discussion sake, as equally offensive and equally crooked; it's that the offensiveness of one is compared to the crookedness of the other. 

        One says nasty, stupid things; the other does nasty, illegal things.  Which would you prefer to have in the White House: one speaking nasty things or one doing nasty things? 

        That's how I read the question, anyway.

        1. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          As I said to GA, the hypothetical is based on a premise that suggests a truth. I won't answer a flawed question with a flawed answer.

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            I see.  Well, if nothing else it manages to side step the question.

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 13 days agoin reply to this

              Oh, baloney. Quit trying to force me to say what YOU want me to say.

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 13 days agoin reply to this

                I didn't ask the question, only provided a description of what I thought was being asked as you did not seem to come to the same conclusion.

                But it DOES seem to me to be a valid question,  The whole PC thing, for instance, comes primarily from the liberal side.  Everything they do seems aimed at perceptions and appearance rather than reality - the appearance is more important than the actual event or meaning is.  Is that true, or they merely being hornswoggled by their party into believing something that isn't true at all?

        2. GA Anderson profile image83
          GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          You read it right wilderness. I did qualify the crookedness and offensiveness as "ifs."

          Perhaps the question would have been easier, (for some), if I had replaced the names with "candidate."  ;-)

          GA

          1. promisem profile image98
            promisemposted 13 days agoin reply to this

            Baloney to you too. You aren't reading the title of your own post.  smile

            1. GA Anderson profile image83
              GA Andersonposted 13 days agoin reply to this

              Baloney to me too? I can understand that promisem. I disagree, but at least we are talking on the same level.

              I am aware of my topic's title. The OP even noted that I was probably being naive thinking the discussion could be about the question; offensiveness v. crookedness, and not the names attached. When that optimism proved misplaced, I even offered a restatement of Candidate A  v.  Candidate B. Of course that would have fooled no one.

              I did not say Hillary was proven crooked and corrupt, I only asked which choice was worse - crooked v. offensive. I can't shake the perception that your disagreement with my "premise" is that Hillary's name is attached to it.

              GA

      2. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        Speaking of bait promisem, just wait till the 'Fly Fisher' jumps in.

        The question was a hypothetical, it wasn't a premise that one is and the other isn't. Since neither have been proven "crooked," (yet?), it could only be an "if" question.

        Your response sounds a bit like PrettyPanther's thought; It's okay, if, the crookedness is by a more sane and rational person. I wonder if that "house guest" illustration would be a more clear explanation of the question.

        "Would you rather invite a smart and pleasant thief, who will steal your most prized possessions, to spend the night in your home, than the rude, crude , and offensive - but honest, co-worker? "

        GA

        1. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          The hypothetical is based on a premise. I'm glad you clarified that neither has been found guilty yet of breaking any laws.

          To your question, I would rather invite a thief without a gun into my home than a thief with a gun.

          1. GA Anderson profile image83
            GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            Come on promisem, no guns were mentioned. There are no more conditions in the "thief" analogy than in my original question.

            Do you require additional conditions in order to answer the original question? It seems as if you need more validaters to allow you to find a back door.

            Regarding your response to Wilderness; How is the question flawed? It is simply a question between two hypothetical conditions. If I had said Hillary was crooked, and Trump was only offensive, then your "flawed" criticism would be valid. But I didn't, and you won't, so I think most will draw a particular conclusion from your responses.

            GA

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              I didn't say you mentioned guns. I don't think your second question is a good analogy to the point I'm trying to make.

              I don't require more conditions. I already stated that I don't agree with the premise.

              You clearly proposed a premise based on Hillary being crooked and Trump being offensive. You even put it in the title.

              The obvious conclusion people can draw is a bias in the question because being crooked in a President is a lot worse than being offensive.

              By the way, did you vote for Trump or Clinton?

              1. GA Anderson profile image83
                GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                Well at least you finally answered the question promisem.

                "The obvious conclusion people can draw is a bias in the question because being crooked in a President is a lot worse than being offensive."

                As for the rest... you are assuming I am bashing Hillary. It was a hypothetical, not a declaration. I suppose it would have been more palatable if I had reversed the attributes and names, but the reports that prompted the question were about Hillary. I didn't arbitrarily decide who to call crooked or offensive.

                Essentially the question asked what was the 'lesser of two evils' crookedness or offensiveness. Maybe I should have left out the names. Would you disagree with that premise? Would that premise have been flawed?

                [EDIT] I didn't vote for either.

                GA

                1. promisem profile image98
                  promisemposted 13 days agoin reply to this

                  I agree that leaving out names would remove the problem of making a direct comparison and remove the appearance of bias.

                  The right including Trump shrieks constantly that Hillary is crooked and belongs in jail. By including her name and saying she is crooked in THE TITLE and the post, you suggest that your post goes beyond a hypothetical.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image83
                    GA Andersonposted 13 days agoin reply to this

                    So even with all the qualifiers; "if,"  "hypothetical," etc. you were still determined to see the perceived bias instead of the actual content?

                    GA

            2. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              Geez, GA, you wanted an honest answer and you got one. No need to get upset because you can't make me say what you want.

              1. GA Anderson profile image83
                GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                I am not upset promisem, and you did say what I too think is the correct answer:

                "The obvious conclusion people can draw is a bias in the question because being crooked in a President is a lot worse than being offensive."

                GA

                1. promisem profile image98
                  promisemposted 13 days agoin reply to this

                  I'm glad we agree on that part.

  2. Aime F profile image85
    Aime Fposted 2 weeks ago

    If one is known to be a crook and the other is known to be offensive then you need a third option.

    1. GA Anderson profile image83
      GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Amen to that Aimie. And we did have other, (third), options. That was my choice.

      GA

    2. Live to Learn profile image80
      Live to Learnposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Hear hear. Wouldn't it be nice if we had been offered a viable third option during the election.

      1. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        You did have that option Live to learn. I used my "write-in" option. Everyone had that same choice.

        I know, "But we couldn't take the chance Hillary would win!" Considering my view of the average voter - that is probably a valid argument. I still chose the write-in option. The integrity of my vote was worth the potential price. Selfish? Probably, but life is full of costs.

        GA

        1. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          A write in, in a national election, is throwing away your vote. I'm not inclined to waste my time standing in line just to make a statement no one would hear.

          1. GA Anderson profile image83
            GA Andersonposted 13 days agoin reply to this

            We certainly disagree on that "throwing away your vote" thought. Different values I suppose.

            GA

            1. Live to Learn profile image80
              Live to Learnposted 13 days agoin reply to this

              Tilting at windmills is foolish, although it did get one guy top billing in a great story.  Maybe the same will happen to you.

  3. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 2 weeks ago

    Nice of you to frame a simplistic dichotomy to give Trump voters an out, GA.

    big_smile

    1. GA Anderson profile image83
      GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      You're right PrettyPanther, it was a simple comparison.  But I didn't have giving Trump voters a pass as a motive. Would you feel the same if no names were attached to the choice?

      The point of the question needed much less explanation with the recognizable names attached, but just for you; Would you still feel voters who chose offensive Candidate B, over crooked Candidate A, made a bad choice?

      But wait, there is a catch. Your determination of mental fitness can only apply to your choice, not everyone's - at least until you can show your determination to be a validated one.

      GA

      1. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        Given the simple choice of offensiveness versus crookedness, I would choose offensiveness.

        I understand your point about my assessment.

        I and many others were called traitors for opposing the invasion of Iraq. We've never received an apology. I don't expect most Trump supporters to ever admit they made a mistake, even after Trump resigns or is otherwise removed from office. Most don't have the courage or character that my husband does. This morning, he said he feels ashamed for how long he stuck by his party. I told him he should be proud for having the ability to admit he was wrong and change. Most people can't do it.

        I have little forgiveness in my heart for the Trump voter who still defends their vote.

        I also recognize I could be wrong, and if Trump is proven to be a stable genius, I will eat crow right here on Hubpages. big_smile

        1. GA Anderson profile image83
          GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          Concerning the Iraq war; what does that have to do with Pres. Trump, and who are you expecting an apology from? I didn't support the Iraq invasion either, but it was only my opinion, and I certainly wasn't expecting any apologies.

          About your husband... I can understand his thoughts, and actions, concerning the Republican party, but I can't say I understand why he went Democrat. If he was a Republican, say up to about 2015, I certainly can't see the Democrat platform as the lure that drew him in. Even as I agree with his leaving the party, I would have expected him to go Independent.

          As for that forgiveness for Trump voters... I am not sure they, even the "anybody but Hillary" ones, think they made as bad a choice as you think they did.

          Was it jackclee that said, "time will tell?"

          GA

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            I think supporting that war was a monumental, but easily predicted, mistake, just like voting for Trump.

            As for apologies, I guess I consider it polite to apologize for calling someone a traitor when they turned out to be right call along. But you're right, I shouldn't "expect" it.

            My husband went Democrat because, in my state, Independents cannot vote in the primaries, unless they have their own independent candidate. Dems vote for Dems in the primaries and Repubs vote for Repubs. I just asked him.

            Actually, it was me who said "time will tell." :-)

            1. GA Anderson profile image83
              GA Andersonposted 13 days agoin reply to this

              Well there you go then... The wisdom of a long life. My favorite is; "And this too shall pass"

              GA

 
working